Date post: | 16-Aug-2015 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | dr-john-pagano-otrl |
View: | 78 times |
Download: | 0 times |
INFORMATION TO USERS
This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer.
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps.
Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9* black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order.
Belt & Howell Information and Learning 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, ME 48106-1346 USA
800-521-0600
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS OF FEEDING YOUNG CHILDREN WITH
DEVELOPMENTAL AND EATING PROBLEMS
John Leonard Pagano, PhD.
University o f Connecticut, 2000
Feeding interventions with young children who have developmental and eating
problems frequently emphasize the mechanics of feeding, giving less attention to parent’s
feeding experiences. Based on family systems and social exchange theories, this study
investigated parents’ experiences o f feeding their child with developmental and eating
problems. Parents’ perceptions of feeding difficulties, feeding rewards, overall feeding
satisfaction, parenting stress, and the impact o f feeding intervention were assessed. The
study focused on the relevance o f family systems and exchange theories to the study o f
parents’ feeding perceptions, and the implications o f parents’ feeding perceptions for
family-centered feeding assessment and intervention.
Thirty-one parents of toddlers and preschoolers with developmental and eating
problems were interviewed and filled out self-report questionnaires related to feeding. All
o f the families were current or former participants in Birth-to-Three programs, most from
Connecticut. Parents described their perceptions o f feeding in response to open-ended
and scale scored questions. Parenting Stress was assessed using the Parenting Stress
Index/Short Form, and demographic and medical information was collected.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
John Leonard Pagano - University of Connecticut, 2000
The primary feeding difficulties reported by parents, such as their child's resistance to
eating, are described. Parents’ rewarding feeding experiences, such as when their child
progressed in his or her eating ability, also are described. Parents’ overall satisfaction
with feeding reflected considerable individual differences in parent responses, but
approximately half o f the parents ranked feeding as their least favorite child care task.
Parents had very high parenting stress levels, half with scores indicating clinically
significant levels o f stress. A. significant negative correlation was found between
parenting stress and ratings o f overall feeding satisfaction. Parents reported feeding
intervention had either a positive (42%), both positive and negative (23%), negative
(11%), or no impact (I t%).
This study supported the use of the family systems and exchange theories for
understanding parents’ feeding perceptions. Application o f the results to family-centered
feeding intervention and future research are discussed. Implications include the
importance o f assisting parents through specific feeding strategies and social support,
promoting parents’ rewarding feeding experiences, and considering parents’ individual
perceptions and needs in determining the best ways to include them in feeding
intervention efforts.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS OF FEEDING YOUNG CHILDREN WITH
DEVELOPMENTAL AND EATING PROBLEMS
John Leonard Pagano
B.S., Quinnipiac College, 1981
M.S., Southern Connecticut State College, 1987
A Dissertation
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
at the
University of Connecticut
2000
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
UMI Number 9988046
Copyright 2000 by Pagano, John Leonard
All rights reserved.
UMI’UMI Microform9988046
Copyright 2001 by Bell & Howell Information and Learning Company. All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
Bell & Howell Information and Learning Company 300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Copyright by
John Leonard Pagano
2000
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
APPROVAL PAGE
Doctor o f Philosophy Dissertation
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS OF FEEDING YOUNG CHILDREN WITH
DEVELOPMENTAL AND EATING PROBLEMS
Presented by
John Leonard Pagano, B.S., M.S.
Major Advisor ^GoldiJane A Goldman
Associate AdvisorThomas Blank
Associate AdvisorPreston Britner
Associate AdvisorPamela Roberts
Associate AdvisorRonald SabateQi
University o f Connecticut
2000
ii
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter_______________________________________________ Pape
r. INTRODUCTION 1.
EL LITERATURE REVIEW 5.
m . METHODS 35.
IV. RESULTS 57.
V. DISCUSSION 88.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 120.
APPENDIX 128.
Ill
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
LIST OF TABLES
TahleNumher__________________________________________ Page Number
Table 1.- Diagnostic Categories o f Toddlers & Preschoolers 39.
Table 2.- Annual Household Income 41.
Table 3.- Matrix o f Instruments Used and Information Collected 45.
Table 4.- Feeding Related Behaviors Included in Feeding Assessments 45.
Table 5.- Rank Order of Greatest Feeding Concerns 62.
Table 6.- Rank Order of Greatest Frustrations in Feeding 63.
Table 7.- Rank Order of Feeding Areas with which Parents Indicated Needing Help 64.
Table 8.- Method 2 Areas of Feeding Parents Indicated NeedingHelp With: Frequency & Percent 65.
Table 9.- Rank Order of Feeding Problems Occurring More than Half the Time 66.
Table 10.- Rank Order of High Frustration Feeding Problems 67.
Table 11.- Rank Order ofProblem Intensity I: Means & Standard Deviations 68.
Table 12.- Rank Order ofProblem Intensity 2: Means & Standard Deviations 69.
Table 13.- Rank Order of Rewarding Feeding Behaviors Reported 70.
Table 14.- Positive Feeding Behaviors Occurring More than Halfthe Time 71.
Table 15.- Overall Satisfaction with the Experience o f Feeding 72.
Table 16.- Overall Satisfection with Feeding Support 73.
iv
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 17.- Overall Satisfaction with Balance Between Feedingand Other Responsibilities 73.
Table 18.- Overall Ranking o f Feeding Favorability 74.
Table 19.- PSI/SF Total Stress and Subdomain Raw Scores 75.
Table 20.- Pearson Correlations o f PSI/SF Total Stress and Subdomain Raw Scores 76.
Table 21.- Significant Relationships Between Problem Feeding Behaviors & PSI/SF Raw Scores 79.
Table 22.- Relationship Between Overall Feeding Satisfaction and Parenting Stress 81.
Table 23.- Rank Order Descriptions o f the Impact o f Feeding Intervention 84.
Table 24.- PSI/SF Total Stress for Parents Reporting Varying Treatment Impacts: Number, Mean, and Standard Deviation 84.
Table 25.- Match Between Parents’ Fast Feeding Goal and IFSPGoals m Rank Order 85.
Table 26.- Match Between Parents’ Second Feeding Goal and IFSP Goals m Rank Order 86.
Table 27.- PSI/SF Total Stress Scores of Parents Having Different Levels o f Agreement Between Pareent Goal I and IFSP Goals:Total Number, Mean, and Standard Deviation 86.
Table 28.- PSI/SF Total Stress Scores o f Parents Having Different Levels o f Agreement Between Pareent Goal 2 and IFSP Goals:Total Number, Mean, and Standard Deviation 87.
Supplemental Tables 1-5 in Appendix J 157.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
I
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2
General Statement of the Problem
Feeding is a major activity in the life o f every young child- For young children and
their parents feeding is a transactional activity most frequently carried out in the family
environment. Feeding involves two major components: the mechanics o f eating, and the
interpersonal aspect of parent-child interactions. Parent-child interactions are influenced
by the parent and child’s perceptions o f the feeding experience. While a good deal o f
information is available concerning both the mechanics o f eating and parent-child
interactions, less attention has been focused on parents’ perceptions of feeding.
It is typical for young children to experience some feeding related problems. However,
for children with special needs, feeding difficulties can be particularly problematic for the
child, the parents, and the family system.
Advances in medical technology have increased the survival rate of infants with
developmental problems, and a high percentage o f these children have feeding difficulties.
Thus, the number of toddlers and preschoolers who have developmental and feeding
problems is steadily rising. There is a recognized need for feeding intervention programs
to promote the growth and development o f these children.
Feeding intervention is a component o f many family-centered early intervention
programs. However, concerns have been raised regarding the effectiveness o f early
intervention services m improving parents’ abilities to feed their children. Family-centered
early intervention providers are aware of the importance o f focusing on the needs o f the
family, but appear to lack an adequate theoretical foundation o f parenting and the family
on which to base their family-centered feeding assessment and intervention services.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
3
Recent research suggests that many young children with mechanical eating problems
also have difficulties with the interpersonal components offeeding- It appears the
mechanical feeding problems and medical history o f children with disabilities can
contribute to difficulties in parent-child feeding interactions and parenting stress.
Interpersonal aspects of feeding, including parents’ feeding perceptions, have a significant
effect on young children’s feeding development. The physical and medical problems of
the young child also have an impact on the parent and family.
Focusing only on eating mechanics and nutritional intake neglects the impact that the
interpersonal components of feeding have on feeding development. Objective observations
o f mealtimes provide useful information about parent-child feeding interactions, but do not
describe the parental perceptions influencing these interactions. The literature on children
with developmental delay suggests that parent's perceptions significantly effect parent-
child interactions and the development o f young children with developmental problems.
Given this relationship of parents’ perceptions to parent-child interactions and the
developmental outcomes of young children, and the importance of feeding in the lives of
young children and their parents, parent’s perceptions o f their young child’s feeding is an
important consideration for early intervention. Parents’ perceptions o f feeding are also an
important consideration in feeding intervention because treatment is more likely to
succeed if parents view the treatment as relevant and support it. For these reasons, an
understanding o f parents’ feeding perceptions can guide the feeding treatment o f young
children with developmental problems.
Using the family systems and social exchange theories, this dissertation will describe
parents’ perceptions offeeding costs, feeding rewards, overall feeding satisfaction, feeding
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
4
intervention, and parenting stress. The relationship between parents’ perceptions of
feeding and parenting stress will also be described. Implications o f parents’ perceptions
for family-centered feeding evaluation and intervention will be discussed. The usefulness
o f the family systems and social exchange theories as a foundation for considering parents’
perceptions o f feeding young children with developmental and eating problems wQl also be
considered.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHAPTER n
LITERATURE REVIEW
5
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
6
Introduction
This literature review begins by describing the most common developmental and
feeding problems o f toddlers and preschoolers- Approaches to feeding intervention are
then described, especially as they relate to family-centered early intervention and the Birth-
to-Three programs. Next, parenting factors related to feeding treatment for young
children with developmental problems are discussed based on the family systems and
social exchange theories. Emphasis is given to research describing parents' perceptions of
feeding and the relationship o f parent's feeding perceptions to parenting stress and feeding
intervention.
Feeding difficulties of young children with developmental problems
As a result of technological and medical advances, there is a steady increase in the
percentage of young children who were bom with developmental delays and disabilities.
Children who in the past would have died from perinatal complications (Lachenmeyer.
1995). Children with developmental delays and disabilities have higher incidences of
feeding problems (Lachenmeyer, 1995). A higher incidence of feeding problems is also
seen in children bom with an extremely low birth weight o f less than 2.2 pounds
(Connecticut Birth to Three Nutrition Task Force, 2000; Lachenmeyer, 1995).
The terminology used to describe developmental problems can be confusing for both
parents and professionals. Developmental delay is a term describing children under five
years old whose developmental skills are significantly below age level expectations (Levy,
1996). Developmental disabilities are problems interfering with age appropriate
Functioning, including various diagnoses that can result in developmental delays
(Prontnicki, 1995).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
7
Toddlers and preschoolers with developmental problems have more feeding and
nutritional problems than typically developing children (Adams, Gordon, & Spangler,
1999; Raddish, Forsythe, & Kleinert, 1995). Ten to twenty-five percent o f children with
developmental disabilities have feeding or nutritional problems (Secrist-Mertz et aL,
1997). Common developmental disabilities associated with an increased incidence o f
feeding problems include Pervasive Developmental Disorder/Autism, Cerebral Palsy,
congenital metabolism disorders, congenital heart disease, cleft lip and/or palate, and
Down Syndrome (Connecticut Birth to Three Nutrition Task Force, 2000; Prontnicki,
1995). Many hospital procedures commonly used in the early medical treatment o f
developmental disabilities and very low birth weight may also contribute to feeding
problems (Delaney, 1998). These medical procedures include the use o f ventilators,
supplemental oxygen, tracheotomies, feeding tubes, and force feeding (Delaney, 1998;
Glass & Lucas, 1990).
Pervasive Developmental Disorders are a spectrum o f neurological problems that
include Autism, and are characterized by social interaction and communication problems.
Many children with Pervasive Developmental Disorders are described as picky eaters, and
this is thought to be associated with sensory problems (Gray, 2000).
Cerebral Palsy is a movement disorder resulting from central nervous system damage
that occurs before age three. The movement problems may interfere with chewing,
swallowing, and self-feeding in children with Cerebral Palsy (Mathisen et aL, 1989).
Metabolism disorders include a variety o f syndromes children are bom with that result
in stunted growth and may also be associated with other physical problems. Providing
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
8
adequate nutrition for growth, may be a problem with these children (Connecticut Birth to
Three Nutrition Task Force, 2000).
Congenital heart disorders include a variety o f chronic heart conditions children are
bom with, many requiring surgery before age five (DeMaso, Campis, Wypij, Bertram,
Lipshitz, & Freed, 1989). Young children with cardiac problems frequently have difficulty
keeping food down and gaining adequate weight for growth (Prontmdd, 1995).
Cleft % and palate are relatively common birth defects occurring in one out o f every
six hundred fifty newborns. Cleft lip and palate can occur individually or together, and are
a result of incomplete embryonic development of the lips or roof o f the mouth (Glass &
W olf 1998). Cleft lip and/or palate are usually repaired surgically before eighteen months
(Glass & Wolf 1998). Some children with cleft lip and palate have continued problems
closing their lips to suck from a bottle after surgery, and others resist feeding because of
over-sensitivity to touch in their mouths. Cleft lip and/or palate can occur alone or as part
o f a syndrome. For example, Pierre Robin Syndrome, one common cause of cleft lip and
palate, is also accompanied by structural changes of the jaw and other disabilities.
Down Syndrome is a genetic problem associated with atypical development o f the
twenty-third chromosome which causes mental retardation and physical problems
including a small jaw. Young children with Down Syndrome may have chewing
difficulties related to their small jaw and delayed development (Prontnicki, 1995).
Faihire-to-Thrive is a categorization describing children an overall weight below the
third percentile norm for their age. An increased percentage o f children with
developmental problems have Failure-to-Thrive. Faihire-to-Thrive may be caused by
physical feeding problems and/or parent-child interaction problems (Lachenmeyer, 1995).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
9
Toddlers and preschoolers with disabilities may show a variety o f distinct feeding
problems. Feeding difficulties may occur hi any or all o f the four phases of eating: food
intake and chewing; propelling food to the back of the throat and swallowing; passage of
the food into the throat so it bypasses the windpipe, and peristalsis propelling the food to
the stomach for digestion (Prontnicki, 1995). Feeding problems o f young children with
extremely low birth weight, developmental delays, and/or developmental disabilities may
include food refusal, picky eating, inappropriate feeding behaviors, difficulty with breast
and/or bottle feeding, cup drinking difficulties, self-feeding problems, loss o f food or liquid
horn the mouth while eating, chewing problems; swallowing problems, choking
difficulties; aspiration o f food or liquid into the lungs; gastroesophageal reflux, vomiting,
weight loss, lack of normal weight gain, lack o f normal growth, and nutritional
deficiencies (Connecticut Birth to Three Nutrition Task Force, 2000; Prontnicki, 1995).
Gastroesophageal reflux is movement o f food or acid from the stomach back up into
the esophagus that often causes a painful burning sensation. Research shows that
approximately 75% of young children with severe Cerebral Palsy experience reflux, which
can cause the child to resist feeding because o f an association between eating and pain.
Nutritional deficiencies can result from food refusal, a limited diet, or the inability to
absorb certain nutrients. Although each o f the feeding difficulties described is distinct,
young children with developmental problems usually have a combination of these
problems (Prontnicki, 1995).
The feeding difficulties of young children with developmental problems are usually
caused by a number o f interrelated factors. Burklow et aL (1998) found that the majority
of children treated for feeding problems (85%) have multiple causes oftheir feeding
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
10
difficulties including both organic and non-organic factors. Infect, the extreme
complexity o f children's feeding problems lies in the interactive nature of the biological,
medical, and behavioral factors that influence and are influenced by feeding problems
(Kedesdy &Budd, 1998). For example, a young child bom with a cleft % and palate may
have feeding difficulties related to: 1) the initial difficulty sucking because of the cleft lip,
2) feeding resistance because of a power struggle that developed when the parents force
fed the child before surgery so that he/she would gain enough weight to have the
operation, 3) difficulty sucking because of the delay in normal feeding experiences before
the cleft was repaired, and 4) resistance to spoon feeding after the operation (related to
fear o f pain from the cleft repair surgery).
This combined influence of physical and interpersonal factors contributing to the
feeding problems of toddlers and preschoolers is supported by research (Mathisen et aL,
1989). Mathisen et al. (1989) found that children who have organic chewing difficulties
related to Cerebral Palsy often also have non-organic problems such as resisting feeding
(because feeding has become a power struggle between the child and parents). In
addition, if a young child has feeding problems that result in poor nutritional intake, the
initial feeding problems may be worsened by malnutrition. Poor nutritional status can
negatively effect an infant’s physical and neurological development resulting in increased
illnesses and a lack o f energy for participation in feeding activities (Burklow et aL, 1998;
Connecticut Birth to Three Nutrition Task Force, 2000; Gray, 2000).
Young children with developmental disabilities who have severe nutrition problems or
complications with oral feedings (e. g. significant aspiration or gastrointestinal problems)
may be given alternate nutritional support through tube feeding- Tube feeding may also be
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
11
used to provide nutrition during hospitalizations for severe medical problems. For tube
feedings expected to be given for less than three months a nasogastric tube is inserted
through the nose providing nutrition to the stomach. If tube feeding is expected to be
used for longer than three months a gastrostomy tube is inserted into the stomach.
Research suggests that tube feeding young children with developmental disabilities who
need supplemental nutrition improves weight gain, nutritional status, and functioning of
the immune system (White, Mhango-Mkandawire, & Rosenthal, 1995).
Feeding intervention approaches
Feeding and nutritional status have unique physical and psychological implications for
young children with disabilities (Ernst & Young, 1993). Thus, feeding intervention is a
necessary component of treatment programs for children with developmental and feeding
problems (Cowen, 1998). Necessary intervention involves assisting parents to help then
child with feeding (Connecticut Birth to Three Nutrition Task Force, 2000).
Treatment may be carried out by speech therapists, occupational therapists, nurses,
nutritionists, special education teachers (also called developmental therapists), physical
therapists, physicians, social workers, family therapists, or psychologists (Connecticut
Birth to Three Nutrition Task Force, 2000). Often more than one professional is involved
with a family, and no single professional discipline is responsible for addressing all areas of
feeding problems. Several professionals often work together in a cooperative manner to
provide feeding services (Connecticut Birth to Three Nutrition Task Force, 2000).
Many different feeding intervention approaches and techniques are used in feeding
treatment with toddlers and preschoolers who have developmental and feeding problems.
Depending on the specific feeding problems and the training o f the early interventionists
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
12
involved, the types of feeding treatment used can be classified as: oral-motor,
compensation, behavioral, parent-child interaction, and social support approaches
(Sheppard, 1995). These treatment classifications are not universally accepted, and a
combination o f these approaches often is used hi feeding treatment, with some approaches
stressed more than others (Sheppard, 1995).
The oral-motor approach is the most commonly used treatment approach for toddlers
and preschoolers with developmental and feeding problems. Oral-motor strategies are
chosen by sequentially evaluating the developmental level and quality of the child’s feeding
skills. Treatment involves selection of specific food types, feeding experiences, and oral-
motor exercises to improve eating skills. Oral-motor strategies and exercises may be used
to improve lip closure, chewing, swallowing efficiency, and problems o f over-sensitivity to
touch in the mouth that are interfering with food acceptance. Parents are usually taught
specific oral-motor strategies and exercises and asked to carry them out regularly with
their child (Sheppard. 1995).
Compensation approaches include the use o f adaptive techniques and equipment to
improve the child’s functional eating. Adaptive techniques may include specific hands-on
assistance provided by the feeder, such as stabilizing the child's jaw to make chewing
easier. Adaptive equipment may include: adaptive seating to position the physically
challenged child for easier eating, specially designed nippies to make sucking easier for
children with cleft palate, and matting under the child's plate so it does not slide during
self-feeding. Parents may be taught to implement the compensation strategies needed to
make eating easier for their child (Sheppard, 1995).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
13
Behavioral approaches use a variety o f behavior modification strategies to address
resistance to accepting an appropriate amount and variety o f food. Evaluation usually
includes confirming that there are no unaddressed medical causes for the food refusal,
specifically documenting the type and frequency o f food acceptance, and determining the
reinforcement methods that will be most effective. Behavior modification strategies may
include: setting up an optimal environment for feeding, having the child eat with other
children who readily accept the food offered, reinforcing food acceptance, limiting the
times and duration during which food is offered time out periods for inappropriate
behavior, or forced feeding. Parents are taught to implement the behavior strategies and
asked to implement them consistently and document their child’s progress (Sheppard
1995).
Problematic parent-child interactions can contribute to feeding difficulties in young
children with developmental problems, but feeding dynamics are not a routine component
o f feeding evaluations (Satter, 1992). Parent-child interaction approaches usually involve
observing and rating parent-child interactions, then teaching the parents to improve their
feeding interactions. Parents are taught normal feeding development and optimal feeding
interaction methods for their child. Feeding interaction strategies that make feeding more
pleasant and enhance child development are modeled. Finally, the interventionist observes
while the parent feeds the child, and provides suggestions and encouragement (Harris,
1989).
Parents with chronic feeding interaction problems may be so overwhelmed by their
difficulties that they require social support before they can benefit from any other feeding
intervention approaches. Social support approaches focus on reducing parenting stress so
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
14
parents can be more responsive to their child. Specific social support strategies may
include parent and family counseling, economic assistance, help with obtaining respite
care, and support groups for parents o f children with feeding problems. Strategies from
any o f the previously mentioned oral-motor, compensation, or behavioral approaches may
also be used as part o f the social support approach to reduce parenting stress (Harris,
1989; Satter, 1992).
Principles of Family-centered Early Intervention
Over the past three decades the focus o f early intervention programs has been evolving
from a child-focused concern with the toddler/preschooler's problems in isolation, to a
family-centered focus on empowering parents to improve their child's developmental skills
(Adams, Gordon, & Spangler. 1999; Kalobe, 1992). This transition to family centered
early intervention was based primarily on the influence of parents and legislative mandates
(Hanft. 1988). Part H o f Public Law 99-457, which established and provided funding for
the Birth-to-Three programs, includes mandatory provisions directing the programs to
provide family-centered services (Hanft, 1988).
These family-centered early intervention services are based on a set o f guiding
principles and procedures, directing service provision for young children toward
supporting the entire family in promoting the development o f the child with special needs
(Adams, Gordon, & Spangler, 1999; Kalobe, 1992). Most children under 3-years-old with
feeding problems are provided services through the Birth-to-Three programs. Currently
Birth-to-Three programs provide family centered services to the majority o f children under
three years old who have significant developmental risks, delays, or disabilities
(Connecticut Birth to Three Nutrition Task Force, 2000; Crowley, 1995).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
15
la response to the family-centered mandates in the Birth-to-Three programs, early
intervention providers have been gradually evolving their practices to provide services that
are consistent with the principles o f family-centered practice (Connecticut Birth-to-Three
System, 1999; Foster & Phillips, 1992; Kalobe, 1992). Early intervention providers have
begun to research and study family and developmental theories, primarily the family
systems theory and the ecological and transactional models ofhuman development (Case-
Smith, 1998; Kalobe, 1992). However, serious concerns have been raised that family-
centered early intervention services lack a theoretical foundation and research bases for
their practices, and that early intervention providers lack a theoretical foundation to guide
their assessments and interventions (Innocenti et a l, 1993). In feet, there is little evidence
that early intervention programs that involve parents are more effective than those that do
not involve parents (Innocenti et al., 1993). There is a strong need expressed in the
literature for the development o f family-centered evaluation and intervention services that
are grounded in a theoretical understanding o f parenting and the family (Humphry, 1989;
Innocenti, Hollinger, Escobar, & White, 1993).
Recognizing the potentially negative effects o f feeding problems on families, feeding
and’nutrition services are provided as a related service to children in Birth-to-Three
programs who require feeding intervention to promote their development (Connecticut
Birth to Three Nutrition Task Force, 2000; Connecticut Birth-to-Three System, 1999;
(Secrist-Mertz et aL, 1997). Feeding and nutrition needs do not independently qualify
children with developmental and eating difficulties for intervention services, but may be a
component in the developmental assessments used to determine eligibility for Birth-to-
Three services. Consistent with the family-centered approach, the purpose o f nutrition
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
16
and feeding intervention in the Birth-to-Three programs is to identify and support the
feeding goals developed fay the family. The be lief is that through focusing on the families
feeding goals, the parents will be folly invested in the feeding intervention, and feeding
services will meet the needs o f the family and child (Connecticut Birth to Three Nutrition
Task Force, 2000).
By the time toddlers reach age three, they have been transitioned out o f the Birth-to-
Three Programs. For three to six year olds who require treatment, intervention is the
responsibility o f the public schools (Innocenti et al., 1993). Although public schools
provide feeding treatment in school settings, they also embrace a family-centered model
that involves parents by including them in treatment planning and home programs
(Innocenti et aL, 1993). The Birth-to-Three programs and public schools are the primary
providers o f feeding treatment to toddlers and preschoolers, and both propose to use
family-centered treatment.
Family Systems Theory as a foundation for considering parents’ feeding perceptions
This paper uses the family systems theory to consider factors related to parenting a
young child with developmental and feeding problems. The parents and child are viewed
as part o f a family system4* .. . comprised o f an interdependent group o f individuals who
have devised strategies for meeting the needs o f individual family members and the
group as a whole” (Anderson & Sabatelli, 1995, p3). Feeding young children is an
important maintenance task o f the family, and the family devises strategies for
accomplishing this task. Family members have varied roles in accomplishing the family
tasks (Anderson & Sabatelli, 1995).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
17
Research suggests that parents significantly influence the development o f young
children with developmental problems. Since parents are most often the ones who feed
toddlers and preschoolers, parenting factors are important in feeding intervention (Satter,
1992). Choosing an appropriate feeding treatment approach involves consideration o f not
only the child’s developmental and feeding problems, but also the parenting factors
influencing feeding (Humphry, 1989; Kraus, 1993; Werner, 1989). The next three
sections o f this chapter address parenting factors, based on family systems theory, that are
related to parents’ perceptions o f their young child with developmental and eating
problems.
Parenting factors when children have developmental and feeding problems
Parents’ self-esteem and actions are influenced by how they view their competency in
the parent role (Anderson & Sabatelli. 1995). For example, research suggests that some
mothers o f disabled children view their child’s poor developmental performance as an
indication that they are a poor caregiver and inadequate parent (Humphry, 1989; Imms,
1998). Since feeding is an important part o f the parenting role, parents may view
themselves negatively because their toddler/preschooler has eating problems. For
example, research suggests that children’s problematic feeding behaviors may influence
parents’ perceptions and consequently their responses to their child (DeMaso, Campis,
Wypij, Bertram, Lipshitz, & Freed. 1990; Lachenmeyer, 1995).
Another factor that may affect the behaviors of parents who have young children with
developmental and feeding problems is their sense o f grief regarding their child's
difficulties. Parents may experience a grieving process that includes denial, anger,
bargaining, or depression related to their child's disabilities. The grieving process may be
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
18
especially severe for parents who perceive their child has severe developmental disabilities
and/or feeding problems. There is little evidence that the grief process is sequential or that
parents achieve a stage o f permanent acceptance o f their child’s disabilities, so parents
may periodically experience greater or lesser distress related to this grief process
(Humphry, 1989).
Because parents most often are responsible for feeding, it is important to consider how
feeding problems may negatively influence parents’ interactions with their child (Harwood,
Miller. & Irizarry, 1995; Kedesdy & Budd, 1998). Parent-child interactions during
feeding involve the basic teaching and learning skills which are the foundation for the
child's developmental progress (Humphry, 1989). A young child's developmental and
feeding problems can interfere with this parent-child teaching and learning process,
frustrating both parent and child and interfering with their relationship (Mathisen et aL,
1989).
Parenting stress when children have developmental and feeding problems
Within the context o f parenting, stress is the pressure experienced by parents to modify
their strategies for executing basic family tasks. Parents normally experience increased
stress with the birth of a child, an expected developmental transition in the life o f a family.
Having a young child with developmental and feeding problems can be viewed as a
nonnonnative stressor event superimposed on the normative stressor event of having a
new child (Anderson & Sabatelli, 1995).
Several evaluations are available to assess parenting stress, including the Parenting
Stress Index (PSI) and the Parenting Stress Index/Short Form (PSI/SF). These self-report
measures assess a parent’s degree o f stress associated with his/her role as a parent. A
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
19
great deal of information regarding parenting stress has been learned through research
involving the PSI and PSI/SF (See Appendix A), as well as other measures o f parenting
stress (Abidin, 1995a).
Research indicates that parents o f young children with developmental and feeding
problems have significantly greater levels of parenting stress than parents o f typically
developing children (Humphry & Rourk, 1991; Innocenti et aL, 1992; Secrist-Mertz,
Brotherson. Oakland, & Litchfield, 1997; Welch, 1996). As in the majority o f studies with
parents whose children had developmental disabilities but no specific feeding problems,
Humphry & Rourk (1991) found parents of children with the feeding problem of reflux
had significantly higher levels of parenting stress, but the higher stress was only related to
child difficulty characteristics.
Research comparing parents of children with developmental disabilities with and
without feeding problems shows mixed results. Adams et aL (1999) studied 32 mothers of
children with disabilities. No significant differences in stress were found between mothers
of children with disabilities and feeding problems, and mothers o f children with disabilities
and no feeding problems (Adams et aL, 1999). However, research by Welch (1996)
suggests that parents o f young children with more severe developmental and feeding
problems experienced greater parenting stress than parents of children with milder
developmental and feeding problems (Welch, 1996). Welch (1996) proposes that feeding
interactions may be a distinct parenting task in which child disability characteristics are
particularly important influences on overall parenting stress.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
20
Effectively coping with parenting stress
When considering stress as a parenting factor it is necessary to consider the parent and
family’s ability to cope effectively with stress. Coping is the use o f problem solving
strategies to respond to stress. Parents and families only experience the negative emotion
o f distress if stress levels exceed their ability to cope effectively (Anderson & Sabatelli
1995).
Affleck and Tennen (1991) studied how mothers’ perceptions and coping strategies at
the tune then infant was discharged from the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU)
predicted their levels o f distress and infant’s development at 18 months old. A significant
positive correlation was found between the developmental outcome of the infants and their
mothers’ expectations in the probability that their child would develop optimally. The
medical severity composite was not significantly correlated with the mother’s’
expectancies or childrens’ outcomes. Mother’s who most frequently used escapist coping
(e.g.. wishful thinking, avoiding social interactions) had children who developed less
optimally. Minimizing the severity of their child’s difficulty in the NICU predicted greater
distress for mothers whose children were eventually diagnosed with developmental
disabilities. The search for meaning was the only coping strategy that predicted less
maternal distress (Affleck &Tennen, 1991).
Effective coping depends on having adequate coping resources. Coping resources
include education, economic well-being, support from family members, and community
social support (Anderson & Sabatelli, 1995). Education and economic status are two
important coping resources. Research indicates that lower income and lower levels o f
education are related to increased parenting stress (Paradise et aL, 1999). Based on a
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
21
study o f 4,515 parents o f toddlers and preschoolers with chronic ear infections, Paradise
et aL (1999) found a significant inverse relationship between socioeconomic status
(including income and educational levels) and parenting stress on the Parenting Stress
Index Short-Form. Similarly, parents of children with failure-to-thrive who had lower
incomes and lower levels o f education were found to have significantly greater parenting
stress than parents o f failure-to-thrive children who had higher incomes and education
levels (Singer et aL, 1989).
Social support has been found in repeated research to mediate stress and buffer the
impact o f crises and chronic stressors (Humphry. 1989; Innocenti et al., 1992). Support is
multidimensional. Support has affective, cognitive, and instrumental elements and can
meet parents' needs for intimate interactions, information, advice, and tangible assistance
(Affleck, Tennen, & Rowe, 1991).
Perceived support from spouses and other family members is also an important coping
resource (Anderson & Sabatelli, 1995). Research regarding parents of children with and
without developmental problems found lower parenting stress was significantly related to
higher perceived support from spouses (Abidin, 1995a). Research with parents of
toddlers and preschoolers with developmental disabilities also showed that lower levels o f
stress were significantly related to greater perceived spousal support (Beckman, 1991;
Warfield, Krauss, Hauser-Cram, Upshur, & Shonkoffl 1999).
Research also supports the effectiveness o f specific forms o f community social support
in enabling parents to cope effectively with parenting stress (Humphry, 1989). Important
types o f community social support include respite care, assistance with child-care tasks,
and parent support groups (Humphry, 1989). However, in order for parent support
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
22
groups and other types of community social support to help parents cope effectively with
stress, the groups must be perceived by the parents as supportive. Research suggests that
parents o f developmentafly disabled children with the greatest feeding problems
experienced the least perceived social support from attending parent support groups
(Secrist-Mertz et a l, 1997).
When feeding treatment services are provided which enable parents to cope
effectively with then child’s feeding problems, they serve as a social support that reduces
parenting stress (Humphry, 1989). Feeding interventions are most likely to provide social
support if professionals demonstrate an understanding o f the unique stresses experienced
by each family. Understanding how parents perceive and cope with their child's feeding
problems enables professionals to better assist families in successfully adapting to these
problems (Handleman, 1995).
However, feeding treatment also has the potential o f providing no social support
(Beckman, 1991). For example, Beckman (1991) found no relationship between parent’s
receiving family-centered intervention services for their toddler or preschooler and
reduced parenting stress. Feeding intervention also has the potential o f increasing
parenting stress (Humphry, 1989). For example, Humphry (1989) states that if early
intervention places demands on parents that they feel they can’t meet, such as extensive
home programs, early intervention can increase parenting stress.
Exchange Theory as a foundation for considering parents* perceptions of feeding
Parents’ perceptions o f feeding are influenced by the child’s developmental and
feeding problems and the parent’s perceptions o f these problems (Kedesdy &Budd, 1998;
Sparling & Rogers, 1985). It appears that parent’s feeding perceptions involve a dynamic
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
23
reciprocal interaction between the infant's physical characteristics and parent factors
(Burklow, Phelps, Schultz, McConnell, Rudolph, 1998; Lachemneyer, 1995).
Exchange Theory provides a foundation for understanding parents’ feeding
perceptions because it provides a framework for understanding the patterns o f fairness,
decision making, and power in intimate relationships that are applicable to both the parent-
child relationship, and the marital relationships which often impacts the parent-child
relationship. Exchange Theory is also particularly applicable for understanding feeding
because it is capable o f addressing both the micro- and macro-level behaviors that affect
feeding, as well as the behavioral and psychological patterns o f interdependence found in
parent-child and marital relationships (Sabatelli & Shehan, 1993). Social exchange theory
will be used in this dissertation to consider parent’s perceptions of feeding.
Social exchange theory suggests a framework for considering an individual’s overall
satisfaction in intimate relationships such as marriage and parenting. Social exchange
theory describes an individual’s satisfaction with intimate relationships as being guided by
the Comparison Level (CL), a standard people use to assess a relationship’s costs and
rewards. The CL is set in terms of ones’ expectations o f what is realistically obtainable,
and is based on an individuai’s awareness o f societal norms and their past experiences.
Expectations and the resulting overall satisfaction can fluctuate over time, as an
individual’s experiences in the relationship constantly feed back into the CL (Sabatelli &
Shehan, 1993).
Based on this concept o f a comparison level standard that is used by individuals in
percieving their overall satisfaction with aspects o f a relationship, the Parental Comparison
Level Index (PCLI) self-report measure was developed (Sabatelli & Shehan, 1993). The
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
24
PCLI evaluates overall parenting satisfaction using two subscales composed o f questions
that assess the costs and rewards o f parenting. Consistent with the social exchange
perspective for assessing social relationships, both the gratifying and burdensome aspects
o f parenting are assessed, with questions using an individual’s subjective expectations as
the baseline for assessment (Waldron-Hennessey & Sabatelli, 1997).
From an exchange perspective, a parent's overall perception of feeding satisfaction
would depend on how they perceived the relationship between the costs and rewards o f
feeding (Anderson & Sabatelli, 1995). Consistent with this view, research with parents o f
disabled children suggests that the overall perceptions of these parents involve a complex
combination o f positive and negative feelings (Larson, 1998). Larson (1998) found the
overall perceptions of mothers with severely disabled children involved paradoxical
feelings towards their role. The mothers experienced joy through their relationship with
their child, as well as sadness over their child’s physical problems (Larson. 1998).
Use of Social Comparison Theory for considering parents’ perceptions of feeding
Social comparison theory addresses the ways in which individuals use cognitive
processes (Croyle, 1992) involving social comparisons to cope with stressful events
(Taylor, Buunk, & Asp inwall, 1990). People may use downward social comparisons
(comparing themselves with others who are less fortunate or capable) or upward social
comparisons (comparing themselves with others who are more capable or better off) in
attempts to cognitively mediate stress. However, upward comparisons do not necessarily
lead to negative affect, and downward comparisons to positive affect (Hemphill &
Lehman, 1991).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
25
The critical factor may not be the type o f comparison that is made, but an individual’s
perception o f what the observation means (Hemphill & Lehman, 1991). Downward social
comparisons can affect an individual positively if they focus on then comparative
superiority or good fortune, or negatively if they perceive it as an indication that their own
situation can get worse. Likewise upward social comparisons can affect an individual
positively if they focus on the possibility that they can become better off than they are
currently, or negatively if they focus on then current relative inadequacy and misfortune
relative to others (Taylor, Buunk, & AspinwalL 1990).
Britner, G3L LaFleur, Pianta, and Marvin (2000) classified parents o f children ages 15
to 50 months old who had cerebral palsy or epilepsy as resolved or unresolved with regard
to their child’s diagnosis based on the Reaction to Diagnosis Interview. Resolved mothers
had significantly larger friendship networks, and significantly less parenting stress (both g
< .05) than Unresolved mothers. Resolved mothers were significantly more likely to
mention accepting the child ‘as they are’ (g < .01). Resolved mothers were significantly
less likely to use positive social comparisons, and significantly less likely to avoid
mentioning the characteristics o f their disabled child than Unresolved mothers. However,
no significant differences were found in the use o f downward social comparisons by
mothers who were Resolved and Unresolved.
Parents* perceptions o f the costs of feeding
In order to effectively assist parents who have a young child with developmental and
eating problems, it is important to understand their perceptions o f feeding as well as the
coping strategies they use to manage their stress related to feeding perceptions. From an
exchange perspective, feeding perceptions would involve the perceived costs and rewards
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
26
o f feeding. In considering the costs o f feeding for parents o f toddlers and preschoolers
with disabilities, one important factor is the significant amount o f tone required for
feeding. Imms (1988) found that compared to parents o f typical children, parents o f
children with eating problems spend significantly more time on feeding (Imms, 1988). A
significantly greater number o f mothers o f children with disabilities report that their child
is a very slow eater and they are worried he/she is not eating enough (Imms. 1988; Reilly
& Skuse, 1992). Secrist-Mertz et aL (1997) found a small positive correlation (p<.10)
between total daily time taken for oral feeding and parental stress. Thus, the greater time
required for feeding young children who have developmental and feeding problems may be
related to increased parenting stress.
A second feeding cost reported by parents of children with developmental and feeding
problems is the difficulty and unpleasantness of feeding their child. Reilly and Skuse
( 1992) compared reports on feeding by twelve mothers o f 15 to 39 months old children
who had cerebral palsy and oral-motor dysfunction, and a matched control group of
mothers whose children had no disabilities. Significant differences were found between
the two groups of mothers. Mothes whose children had disabilities more often reported
that feeding was very difficult and unenjoyable (Reilly & Skuse. 1992).
A third feeding cost for parents described in the literature is their child having specific
feeding behaviors that are assumed to be problematic. One study o f parents whose
children had Cerebral Palsy and feeding problems found that the most commonly reported
difficulties were: mealtimes o f over 45 minutes (40%), difficulty chewing and/or
swallowing (40%), and eating small amounts o f food (14%) (Dahl et aL. 1996).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
27
Clark et al. ( 1998) used a nutrition screening with parents o f425 infants from birth to
three years old with developmental problems. The highest percentage o f feeding problems
parents’ described as occurring more than three times monthly were: Intake ofless than 16
oz. or more than 32 oz. of miIk/fbrmuIa-26%; gagging-16%; weight loss or lack o f weight
gain-14%; problematic behavior (described as food refusal/aversion, pickiness, and
tantrums)-13%; and not eating an entire food group-11% (Clark et al.. 1998).
Parents’ perceptions of the rewards o f feeding
Parents o f young children with developmental and feeding problems stress the
importance of feeding being enjoyable, providing nurturance. and maintaining normalcy
(Brotherson et aL. 1995). Considering this perceived importance parents o f disabled
children appear to place on positive feeding experiences, it is problematic that only one
(Brotherson et aL. 1995) o f seven studies regarding parents’ feeding perceptions
considered the rewarding aspects o f feeding (Clark et al.. 1998; Dahl et al., 1996;
Innocenti et aL. 1993; Meyer. CoO, Lester, Boukydis. McDonough, & Oh, 1994; Reilly &
Skuse. 1992; Secrist-Mertz et aL, 1997; Sparling & Rogers, 1985).
Importance of parents* perceptions for family-centered feeding intervention
An understanding of parents’ feeding perceptions is important in evaluating and
treating young children with developmental and feeding problems. Since most infant
feeding problems are initially identified through parental reports, an increased
understanding o f parents’ feeding perceptions could enhance professionals’ abilities m the
early identification and treatment o f infant feeding difficulties (Forsyth et al.. 1985). An
understanding o f parents’ perceptions of their young child’s feeding behaviors provides a
foundation for affective family-centered feeding intervention by clarifying parents’ feeding
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
28
concerns, pleasures, satisfaction, and goals (Bemheimer & Keogh, 1995; Crowley, 1995;
Deal et aL, 1994). Focusing on parents’ feeding concerns and goals promotes parents’
investment in feeding intervention.
It is crucial that parents view feeding intervention as relevant to their needs and are
invested in it. The literature suggests that if parents are not invested in feeding treatments
they will not follow through on the required interventions (Reilly & Skuse. 1992:
Humphry, 1991). This lack o f parental investment in feeding treatments appears to be
contributing to the ineffectiveness of nutrition interventions (Reilly & Skuse, 1992). An
understanding o f parents’ feeding perceptions is therefore an important component o f
feeding intervention to promote feeding development.
Research involving family-centered feeding intervention
Despite the predominance o f family-centered treatment, there are few studies that
evaluate the effectiveness o f family-centered treatment specific to feeding. In one o f these
studies. Meyer. ColL Lester, Boukydis. McDonough, and Oh (1994) used parents’ reports
o f their preterm infant’s feeding problems as the bases for providing individualized family-
based feeding treatment. Intervention included: modeling positive feeding interactions;
parent support and counseling to improve parent-infant interactions and family
functioning; and support with transition from the hospital. Mothers in the treatment group
had less depression and parenting stress on self-report measures, and showed improved
parent-infant interactions on double-blind observation measures. The infants in the
intervention group showed significantly fewer negative feeding behaviors (e.g.. grimacing,
gagging). The researchers concluded that the family-based feeding intervention positively
influenced parental adaptation and interactions. However, the significance o f the original
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
29
feeding and developmental problems o f these infants was not well established, and a
significant number of preterm infants spontaneously recover from developmental and
feeding problems (Meyer et aL, 1994).
Innocenti et aL (1993) conducted a randomized experimental study comparing early
intervention programs with and without a parent involvement component. Seventy 3 to 6
year olds with developmental disabilities who attended a preschool program participated in
the study. The parent involvement group received classes on child development, specific
early intervention treatment strategies for the child and a parent support group for one
school year. Feeding treatment was included in the intervention, but it was not stated that
all of the children had feeding problems or received feeding treatment. The group
receiving the supplemental parent involvement showed small but significant improvement
in child development outcomes, and perceived parent support (on self-report measures)
immediately after the intervention program. However, these significant gains were not
maintained one year later. Only parents' increased understanding o f the relationship
between environmental influences and child developmental progress was still significantly
different for the parent involvement group one year after the intervention program.
Results o f the study are limited in that some o f the treatment group members continued to
receive a parent involvement program in the year preceding retest while others did not
(Innocenti et al.. 1993).
Most feeding intervention programs for young children with disabilities, regardless o f
the type or setting, currently describe themselves as family-centered. However. Innocenti
et aL (1993) raise serious questions regarding the degree to which these family-centered
feeding intervention programs address the needs and concerns o f parents. It appears that
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
30
many early interventionists do not apply a theoretical understanding o f parent factors (e.g.
family systems theory, attachment theory, or family stress theory) to their treatment of
feeding problems with, toddlers and preschoolers. While family-centered practice is the
goal o f most feeding intervention programs, often parents’ perceptions are not fully
understood or measured.
As a result, the effectiveness o f the parent intervention component o f these programs
has been questioned. Innocenti et al. (1993) state there has been " . . . very little evidence
that early intervention programs that involve parents were more effective than those which
did not involve parents" (p. 307). Given the mandate of the Birth-to-Three Program that
feeding intervention involve parents and focus on parents' feeding concerns (Connecticut
Birth to Three Nutrition Task Force, 2000), it is important for feeding intervention
programs to consider how parents’ perceptions effect feeding intervention (Innocenti et
aL, 1993).
Summary of the literature review
This literature review describes common developmental and feeding problems of
toddlers and preschoolers. Parent factors affecting parents’ perceptions of their child with
developmental and feeding problems are described, with an emphasis on parenting stress.
Research suggests that parents with young children who have developmental and feeding
problems experience greater stress than parents o f typically developing children.
Research regarding parents’ perceptions o f their child’s developmental and feeding
problems are then discussed based on family systems and social exchange theories. Parents
with children who have developmental and feeding difficulties have identified specific
difficulties related to feeding. The feeding problems most frequently identified by parents
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
31
as problematic inchided their child not eating enough, taking a long time to feed, and
experiencing oral-motor problems (e.g., gagging, and having difficulty with chewing).
However, the literature on feeding focuses on negative feeding behaviors, and little
information was found regarding the positive aspects o f feeding for parents o f children
with developmental and eating problems. Overall, parents o f young children with
developmental and feeding problems were significantly more likely to describe their child’s
behavior as atypical and feeding as unenjoyable.
Intervention programs for young children with developmental and feeding problems are
also described. While a family-centered approach to feeding treatment is currently used, its
theoretical foundations have been questioned and there is a lack o f research supporting the
effectiveness o f this approach in reducing parents’ stress related to feeding. A greater
understanding o f parent’s perceptions of feeding appears to be needed to enable early
intervention programs to more effectively implement family-centered feeding intervention
to reduce parents’ negative feeding experiences.
Research Questions
This paper considers parents’ feeding experiences based on the family systems and
social exchange theories. Feeding is considered as a maintenance task involving primarily
the parent and child, but affecting the entire family system. From this family systems and
exchange theory perspective parents’ perceptions o f feeding are crucial considerations for
feeding intervention with toddlers and preschoolers. Parents’ overall satisfaction with
feeding is conceptualized as depending on the relationship between parents’ perceived
costs and rewards o f feeding.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
32
The aim o f this study is to describe parents’ perceptions of feeding their infant/toddler
who has developmental and eating problems including: I) then: perceptions of feeding
costs, rewards, and overall satisfaction, 2) the relationship o f specific feeding costs and
rewards to parenting stress, and 3) the impact of feeding intervention. Parents' feeding
experiences are viewed from the perspective of family systems and social exchange theory.
Parents’ feeding perceptions are considered as they relate to family-centered feeding
intervention in order to answer the following research questions:
Question 1: What components of feeding do parents o f toddlers/preschoolers who have
developmental and eating problems describe as difficult and frustrating?
Question 2: What components of feeding do parents o f toddlers/preschoolers who have
developmental and eating problems describe as rewarding?
Question 3: How do parents o f toddlers/preschoolers who have developmental and eating
problems rate their overall satisfaction with feeding?
Question 4: How do parents’ perceptions o f feeding costs, rewards, and overall
satisfaction with feeding relate to parenting stress?
Question 5: What are parents’ perceptions o f the overall impact o f the Birth-to-Three
programs' feeding interventions?
Relevance of the study and its findings
This paper provides relevant information regarding parents’ feeding perceptions that is
not well addressed by the existing literature. One o f the areas addressed in this paper is
parents’ perceptions o f the rewarding aspects o f feeding. The rewarding aspects of
feeding appears to be an important component of parents’ perceptions in feeding young
children with developmental and eating problems (Brotherson et aL, 1995; Clark et aL,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
33
1998; Dahl et al., 1996). This study helps to address a gap m the research by describing
parents’ perceptions o f positive feeding experiences with their toddler/preschooler who
has developmental and eating problems. Understanding parents’ perceptions o f rewarding
feeding experiences may prove helpful for planning feeding treatment to promote a more
positive perception o f feeding by parents (Bemheimer & Keogh, 1995; Crowley, 1995;
Deal et al.. 1994).
A second contribution o f this paper is its consideration o f parents’ perception o f their
degree o f frustration related to specific feeding behaviors. Previous studies have reported
parents perceptions o f the frequency of occurrence of presumably problematic feeding
behaviors (Clark. Oakland. & Brotherson. 1998; Dahl, Thommessen, Rasmussen. &
Selberg, 1996). However, whether and to what degree parents find these behaviors
problematic is unknown. Through having parents rate their perceived frustration related to
presumably problematic feeding behaviors, this paper provides unique information
regarding parents’ perceptions o f their feeding costs.
A third contribution o f this study is its use o f open-ended questions, enahlmg parents
to generate a description o f their greatest feeding costs, rewards, and needs. This
addresses the need expressed by Forsyth, Leventhal, and McCarthy (1985) for using open-
ended questions to provide an understanding o f the meaning parents give to problematic
feeding behaviors. Little research was found that asks parents o f children with
developmental and feeding problems to generate a description of the feeding behaviors
they find most problematic (Forsyth et aL. 1985).
A fourth contribution o f this paper is its description o f the relationships between
parents’ feeding perceptions and overall parenting stress. Given the established
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
34
relationship between overall parenting stress and developmental outcomes, significant
relationships between parents' perceptions of their child's feeding behaviors and parenting
stress may suggest the need for a greater emphasis on family-centered feeding intervention
and/or identify specific feeding behaviors that should be considered in feeding treatment to
reduce parenting stress.
This paper also offers a unique contribution through its approaching parents’ feeding
perceptions from the perspective o f family systems and social exchange theories.
Consistent with these perspectives, the paper utilizes parent self-report measures to reflect
parents’ perceptions o f feeding and overall parenting stress, rather than measures that
involve observations by outside experts. Influenced by the exchange theory perspective,
consideration is given to parents’ perceptions o f feeding costs, rewards, and overall
feeding satisfaction (Waldron-Hennessey & Sabatelli, 1997).
Finally, this study investigates the concerns raised by Innocenti et aL (1993) regarding
the degree to which family-centered feeding intervention programs address the needs and
concerns o f parents. As noted in the literature review, research suggests that feeding
intervention with young children who have developmental and feeding problems is more
effective if it addresses the goals parents’ perceive are most important. This paper
considers parents’ perceptions o f feeding intervention and their relationship to parenting
stress.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHAPTER m
METHODS
35
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
36
1. Participants
Participants were 31 parents with 15 to 52 month old children (mean age 28 months)
identified as having feeding difficulties and developmental problems qualifying them for
participation in the Birth-to-Three programs. All families were participants or former
participants in the Birth-to-Three System, 27 m Connecticut and 4 from out o f state (one
each from New York, New Jersey, Florida, and North Carolina). Twenty-five (81%) were
currently in the Birth-to-Three Program at the time of the interview; while 6 (19%) had
graduated.
Interviews were done with the parent who was the primary feeder and identified within
the family as doing the most feeding. In order to support families in improving their child's
eating skills, the focus of this study was on the perceptions o f parents, rather than on
observation o f the children's behavior.
The sample was drawn primarily from within the Connecticut Birth-to-Three program
and was a convenience sample. Efforts were made to include families of diverse
socioeconomic backgrounds representative of the Birth-to-Three program participants.
All o f the target children had extremely low birth weight, developmental delays, or
developmental disabilities consistent with the criteria for participation in Connecticut’s
Birth-to-Three Program Birth-to-Three Program agencies participating in this study
included: Rehab Associates, Reach Out, Inc.. Kidsteps, Learn: Partners for Birth to Three,
and Early Connections Northwest and Eastern Connecticut Regions.
la . Criteria for Inclusion: Criteria for inclusion in the study were 1) parents had to
speak English (due to the unavailability o f an interpreter); 2) children had to eat orally, so
that eating skill concerns were relevant; 3) children had to meet eligibility requirements for
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
37
participation in the Birth-to-Three Program, and 4) children had to have a feeding
problem.
The operational definition of developmental problems for this paper is extremely low
birth weight (less than 2.2 pounds), developmental delays as noted from standardized
testing o f -2 standard deviations in one or more developmental areas o r-1.5 in two or
more areas, or a major diagnosis. All o f these criteria for developmental problems are
factors known to be related to increased incidences o f feeding problems, and consistent
with the criteria for inclusion in the Connecticut Birth-to-Three Program at the time o f the
study (Connecticut Birth to Three Nutrition Task Force, 2000).
Feeding problems are operationally defined in this paper as documentation in the
child's evaluation record of a feeding, eating, and/or nutritional problem reported by the
parent, therapist, and/or physician- Children who received tube feeding m addition to oral
feeding were included as long as they took some food orally on a regular basis.
Parents whose children had cleft lips or palates that had not been surgically repaired
were not included in the study, but children with cleft lips or palates that had been
surgically repaired were included. It was presumed that the feeding problems experienced
by children with cleft lips or palates that have not been surgically repaired may be distinct
from other children with developmental and eating problems.
lb . Child Factors: The target children who met the criteria for this study had a variety
of diagnoses, which were organized into seven diagnostic categories (see Table 1).
Diagnostic categorizations were organized in hierarchical order (See Appendix I, section
II for releability information). Diagnoses of the children were categorized as: Pervasive
Developmental Disorder and/or Autism (19%), Cerebral Palsy (39%), Cleft % and/or
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
38
palate with surgical correction (6.5%), Down Syndrome (7%), Cardiac problems and
developmental delay (6.5%), Developmental delay with no cardiac problems (19%). and
Extremely low birth weight (3%). Twenty-three (74%) o f the subjects were fed only by
mouth, while 8 (26%) were tube fed and fed orally.
Only one of the 8 tube fed children had a nasogastric tube, the other 7 were fed by a
gastrostomy tube. Regarding current disabilities 6 (21.4%) were legally blind (N=28), 8
(28.6%) were hearing impaired (N = 28), 3 (11.1%) had shunts (N = 27), 10 (34.5%) had
a seizure disorder (N = 29). and 4 (14.3%) had experienced a seizure in the past 6 months
(N = 28).
Ages o f the target children ranged from 15 months (1 year 3 months) to 52 months (4
years 4 months), with a mean of 27.7 months and a mode of 34 months (SD = 9.1).
Twenty-five (81%) o f the target children were boys and six (19%) were girls. The
children received a mean o f 8 Birth-to-Three treatment session weekly, ranging from 1 to
31 sessions weekly. A treatment session was defined as a treatment o f 45 to 60 minutes.
Using this criterion, a three hour session was calculated as three treatments.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
39
Table I
Diagnostic Categories of Toddlers & PreschoolersDiagnoses Number Valid
PercentPDD and/or Autism 6 19Cerebral Palsy 12 39Cleft lip and/or palate (surgically' corrected)
2 6.5
Downs Syndrome 2 6 JDD and cardiac or metabolic diagnosis
2 6.5
Developmental Delay 6 19Extremely low birth weight I 3
lc. Parent/family Factors: All of the primary feeders were parents o f the target child,
including 29 mothers (93.5%) and 2 fathers (6.5%). Primary feeders had a mean age of
34 years, ranging from 19 to 43 years old. Twenty-three (74%) were married, seven
(23%) were single, and one (3%) was divorced. Twenty-three (74%) o f the primary
feeders were white, four (13%) were Hispanic, three (10%) were black, and one (3%)
categorized herself using the '‘Other” category to specify that she was Hispanic white.
Fourteen (45%) o f the primary feeders were college graduates, nine (29%) had vocational
school/some college, four (13%) had a graduate degree, two (6.5%) were high school
graduates, and two (6.5%) had some high schooL
The average total time required for daily feeding of the target child ranged from one-
half hour to eight hours, with a mean o f 2.4 hours (mode = 2.0 hours, SD = 1.5 hours).
The mean percent of feeding done by the primary feeder was (65%), ranging from (22%)
to (100%). Spouses/partners o f the primary feeder did an average o f (16%) o f the
feeding, ranging from (0%) to (50%). All other feeders combined did an average o f 16%
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
40
o f the total feeding, ranging from (0%) to (75%). The primary feeders were employed a
mean o f 20 hours weekly, ranging from 0 to 45 hours.
Twenty-five (86%) o f the households included 2 adults, three (10%) 1 adult, and one
(3%) 4 adults. Thirty-five percent o f the households had 1 child besides the target child,
(31%) had no other children, (21%) had 2 additional children, (10%) had 3 children, and
(3%) had 8 children. The mean percentage o f time that child-care was provided only by
the parents was 83%, while 10% of the time the children were cared for in day care
centers, 5% of the time by baby sitters or nurses in the home, and 2% o f the time by
relatives.
Twelve (41%) o f the subjects had an annual household income of $51,000-100,000, six
(21%) $26,000-50,0000. five (17%) less than $15,000. four (14%) $101.000-200,000,and
two (7%) $15,000-25,000 (see Table 2).
Table 2
Annual Household Income
Income Range Frequency Percent ValidPercent
CumulativePercent
Less than $15,000 5 16.1 17.2 17J215.000-25,000 2 6.5 6 3 24.126,000-50,000 6 19.4 20.7 44.851,000-100,000 12 38.7 41.4 86.2101,000-200,000 4 12.9 13.8 100.0Total 29 93.5 100.0 100.0
2. Instrumentation
Five instruments were used for this study. As shown in the Matrix o f Instrumentation
(see Table 3), the five instruments collectively gathered variables in the five major areas
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
41
feted in the left column o f the matrix: 1. Demographics, 2. Perceptions o f Feeding
Difficulty, 3. Perceptions o f Feeding Rewards, 4. Impact o f the Birth-to-Three Programs’
feeding intervention and overall feeding support on the primary feeder, and 5. Parenting
stress.
Table 3
Matrix o f Instruments Used and Information Collected
InformationCollected
DemographicQuestionnaire
InformationAboutYourself
FeedingQuestionnaire
Family Demographic & Medical History
ParentingStressIndex-ShortForm
1. Demographics X X X X2.Perceptions of Feeding Difficulty
X X
3 .Perceptions of Feeding Rewards
X
4 -Impact of the Birth-to-Three Programs’ feeding intervention and overall feeding support on the primary feeder
X X
5-Parenting Stress X
2a. Demographic Questionnaire: The parent identified within the family as doing the
most feeding was interviewed to update and clarify medical and developmental
information from the child’s Birth-to-Three record, and to gather demographic information
about the family not available from the record (see Demographic Questionnaire, Appendix
B). Information gathered from this interview included the target chfld’s recent medical
problems, childcare arrangements, and the percentage o f feeding done by the primary
feeder. The Demographic Questionnaire and the Information about Yourself form
(Appendix C) gathered information about the nature o f the child’s microsystem o f family
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
and day care providers. This information was vital in gathering relevant variables that
impact feeding. The relevance of these demographic variables is justified by: the diversity
o f the Birth-to-Three population, base o f knowledge regarding the significant influence o f
demographic variables, and the scientific relevance o f social constructs (e.g. ethnicity,
race, gender, socioeconomic status) on both development and the institutions which
provide the contexts for development (Entwisle & Astone. 1994).
2b. Information Abont Yourself: This self-report instrument was used to gather
demographic information about the primary feeder, including the family's annual income
(Appendix C). Certain items in this section were the same as or influenced by items
related to life stress from the PSI (Abidin. 1990). Consistent with the suggestions of
Entwisle and Astone (1994). subjects were asked to identify race and ethnicity using a
self-report instrument, and an "other" category was added which allowed subjects to
specify race and ethnicity beyond those included U.S. Bureau o f Census scheme o f five
categories e.g. non-Hispanic white. Hispanic, black. Native American, and Asian and
Pacific Islander (1). Race and ethnicity information was limited to the primary feeder, as
this individual was the focus of this research.
2c. Feeding Questionnaire: The Feeding Questionnaire (Appendix D) was developed
based on a review o f the literature and the researcher's clinical experience with families
who have a child with developmental disabilities and feeding difficulties. Items were
chosen after analyzing a variety o f feeding assessments to determine the specific aspects of
feeding that should be assessed.
The five major topics covered by the Feeding Questionnaire are Child sensory-motor
behaviors (Section A), Parent feeding interaction behaviors (Section B). Child behavioral
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
43
characteristics (Section C), Parent/child interactions (Section D), and Functional
feeding/eating skills (Section E).
The Feeding Questionnaire consisted o f open-ended and scaled questions that
attempted to comprehensively cover all the relevant aspects o f feeding from an
occupational transactional orientation. Specific problematic feeding behaviors were rated
by the primary feeder according to frequency of occurrence, and the degree o f frustration
experienced by the parent when they occurred. Through open-ended questions parents
also described the feeding behaviors they perceived as most problematic and for which
they needed the greatest support. Similarly, parents rated the frequency with which their
child demonstrated age appropriate feeding behaviors and described through open-ended
questions the aspects o f feeding they found most rewarding.
The open-ended questions and scale scored items o f the Feeding Questionnaire were
primarily based on the CEBI "Children's Eating Behavior Inventory" (Archer. Rosenbaum.
& Streiner. 1991). Other feeding assessments that were used to develop the Feeding
Questionnaire, listed from most to least influential, were the Parental Comparison Level
Index (Waldron-Hennessey & Sabatelli. 1997), Clark Nutrition Screening (Clark et a l.
1998), Parenting Stress Index (Abidin. 1990), Quality o f Life Issues Regarding Feeding
(Brotherson et aL, 1995), FIRST Assessment (Sparling & Rogers, 1985; Sparling, 1999),
NCAST Feeding Scale (Barnard, 1994), Connecticut Birth-to-Three Nutrition Survey
Proposal (Connecticut Birth to Three. 1999), the Interview About Feeding (Pridham,
1999), Oral-Motor Assessment (Sheppard, 1995), and the SOMA "Schedule for Oral
Motor Assessment" (Reilly et aL, 1995). A list of the behaviors assessed by the Feeding
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
44
Questionnaire, and the feeding evaluations that were found which address these behaviors,
are identified in Table 4.
An in-person semi-structured interview conducted in the home was chosen as the best
method for gathering specific information regarding parents’ perceptions o f their child's
feeding behaviors. Interviews in the parents’ homes were chosen because they allow the
most interaction of any survey method, and provide a greater understanding of the context
o f parent responses in the home environment which is most relevant to feeding young
children (Azzi-Lessing, 1996).
A semi-structured interview format, using both a rating scale and open-ended
questions, was chosen for the interview. The inclusion o f open-ended questions allowed
parents to elaborate on responses and promoted rapport between the interviewer and
respondent. A wider range of in-depth responses was more likely because open-ended
questions were used, which may have provided a better understanding o f the parents’
perspective by including the context in which it exists. By also including the rating scales,
greater consistency was possible than if only open-ended questions were used. The
inclusion o f the rating scale offered improved reliability, making data analysis less time
consuming so more subjects could be included for greater generahzeabOity o f responses
(Azzi-Lessing, 1996).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
45
Table 4
Feeding Related Behaviors Included in Feeding Assessments
Feeding Related Behaviors CEBI ClarkNutritionScreening
clinical
FIRST NcAST
Oral-MotorSheppard
A. Child Sensorv-Motor Oral Behaviors
I. Age appropriate chewing X X X X X
2. C (Child) eats chunky foods X X X
3. C eats solids after 1 year X X X
4. C lacks good functional suck X X X
5. C withdraws to touch on face X X X
6. C dislikes tooth brushing X X
7. C able to pucker/kiss X
8. C able to blow X X
9. C able to vocalize "mm" and "bb" X X
10. Lips take food off spoon o f 16 months
X X X
11. C opens mouth I as spoon approaches
X X
12. Lips closed so no leakage’s X X X
13. Tongue propels food out by accident
X X X
14. Munching after 6 months X X X
15. Graded jaw movements X X X
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
46
B. Parent Feedine Interaction Behaviors
1. P (Parent) talks to C X X
2. P smiles at C X X
3. P makes eye contact with C X X
4. P comments on C signals X X X
5. P able to interpret C signals X X X
6. P responds to C distress X X X
7. P yells at or slaps C X
8. P plays/sings with C X
9. P gets upset with spouse at C's mealtimes
X
10. P agrees with spouse regarding the amount C should eat
X
C. Child Behavioral Characteristic
la. C watches television while eating X X
lb. C brings toys/books to the table X X X
2. C enjoys eating X X
3. C asks for food he shouldn't have X X
4. C eats quickly
5. C takes food between meals without asking
X X
6. C eats foods o f varied tastes X X
7. C lets foods sit in his mouth X X X
8. C's meal time behavior upsets spouse X X
9. C's meat time behavior upsets siblings X X
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
47
10. C eats when upset X
11. C says he's hungry X
12. C hides food X X
13. C is alert and attends during meal times
X X
14. C looks at P during meal times X X X
15. C helps clear table X X
16. C interrupts P's conversations during mealtimes
X X
17. C Pica (eats nonfood items) X
18. C on bottle after 24 months X X
19. C refuses solids X X X X
20. C refuses liquids X X X X
22. Relatives complain about C's eating X X
23.
D. Parent/Child Interactions
I. P feeds even if C doesn't want to eat X X
2. P feels child eats enough X X X
3. P folds meals stressful X X
4. P gets upset when C doesn't eat X
5. P lets C have between meal snacks X
6. P gets upset when thinks about C's mealtime behaviors
X X
7. P lets C chose at meals between served foods
X
8. P problems positioning C for feeding X X X X
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
48
E. Functional Feedme/Eatme Skills
1. C’s eating takes over 45 minutes/mealtime
X X X
2. Age appropriate self1 feeding by C X
3. C gags at mealtimes X X X X
4. C vomits at mealtimes X X X X
5. C chokes at mealtimes X X X
6. C coughs at mealtimes X
7. C swallows without problems X X
8. C gets nausea during mealtimes X
9. C has diarrhea X
10. C has constipation X
11. C is tube fed X X X
12. C takes less than 16 oz. Of formula/day
X
13. C takes more than 32 oz. of formula/day
X
14. C demonstrates nasal regurgitation X
15. C looks away from P during mealtimes
X X X
16. C receives special formula X X X
17. Cs weight for height greater than 95th percentile
X
18. C s height for age less than 5th percentile
X X
19. C's weight for age less than 5th percentile
X X X
20. C s weight for height less than 5th percentile
X X X
21. Appears overweight X
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
49
22. Appears underweight X X X
23. Head circumference less than 5th percentile
X X
24. Reported weight loss or lack o f weight gain
X X X
25. History ofNICU stay X
26. History o f tube feeding X
27. History o f force feeding X
28. Known diagnosis related to feeding risk
X X X
29. Known gastrointestinal problem X X X
30. Known Craniofacial problem
31. Medication which may effect feeding
X X X
32. Food allergy X X
33. C’s neck is extended backwards more than 90 degrees
X X X
34. C shows abnormal reflexes X
35. C shows abnormal oral reflexes X
36. C shows abnormal oral muscle tone X X
37. C demonstrates lips closure with no leakage o f food or liquid
X X
Piloting was done with five parents who fit the criteria for research subjects. Changes
to the interview were made after each, pilot interview. Modifications were also facilitated
through input from content experts including all dissertation committee members and the
doctoral research seminar group o f Boston University Sargent School, Occupational
Therapy Program. Based on the researcher's experience during piloting, comments made
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
50
by parents during piloting, and related discussions with resource experts, the Feeding
Questionnaire was modified Questions were added to the Feeding Questionnaire related
to the primary feeder's comfort with letting other people feed his/her child satisfaction
with support received with feeding, and overall feeding satisfaction.
In its final form, the Feeding Questionnaire has four sections. Section A asks open-
ended questions about general feeding concerns, feeding in relation to other child care
tasks, and time taken for feeding.
In Section B. parents rate the frequency o f their child's feeding problem behaviors.
Items are rated based on their frequency o f occurrence during feeding. Rating is done
using a five-point scale. Parents rate the occurrence o f an item: 0 if it never occurs. I if up
to 25% o f the time. 2 if up to 50% of the time. 3 if up to 75% of the time, and 4 if more
than 75% of the time. In addition, for each behavior that occurs (given a frequency rating
of I to 4) parents rate how frustrating they find the behavior. Frustration is rated on a
continuum from 0-Not frustrating to 4-Extremely frustrating. The scales for scoring
Section B and C were given to the parent on an index card during the appropriate section
o f the interview.
For each item, three scores are identified 1) Frequency, 2) Frustration, and 3) Problem
Intensity 1. Problem Intensity I is calculated as Frequency X Frustration. If a problem
frequency was 0 (the problem never occurred), problem frustration was not scored but
problem intensity received a score o f 0. However, if there was a problem frequency o f I
to 4, but data for problem frustration was missing, problem intensity was not calculated
and appears as missing data.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
51
In section C, parents rate the frequency o f occurrence o f age appropriate child feeding
abilities. Parents rate the occurrence of the positive feeding behaviors as: 0 if the positive
behavior never occurs, 1 ifupto25% o f the time, 2 if up to 50% o f the time, 3 if up to
75% ofthe time, and4 if more than 75% ofthe time.
Section D includes open-ended questions followed by safe scored questions. These
open-ended questions address parents’ overall experience of feeding and the adequacy of
the support they receive. The interview includes specific probes regarding the reasons
behind parent answers (included in bold print on the Feeding Questionnaire-Inlerviewer
Form, Appendix E). Scale scored questions then ask parents to rate their overall
satisfaction with feeding and the support they receive. These last questions were
developed based on the scale scored questions involving overall parenting satisfaction
included in the demographics section of the Parenting Stress Index but were modified to
specifically address feeding. Responses to the interview were recorded on the Feeding
Questionnaire-Interviewer Form.
2d. Family Demographics and Medical History Form: Developmental and medical
information was gathered from information in the Birth-to-Three records using the Family
Demographics and Medical History Form (Appendix F). Decisions on relevant
demographic and medical information to include were based on a review o f the feeding
literature (Pridham, Brown, & Schroeder, 1998; Welch, 1996). Developmental areas
assessed in the Birth-to-Three record include Physical Development-gross motor and fine
motor, Cognitive Development, Personal/Social Skills, Self-Help/Adaptive Skills, and
Communication Skills-receptive and expressive language. Developmental level is reported
in the Birth-to-Three record based on standardized tests that provide standard deviation
Reproduced with permission o fthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
52
scores for each area o f development. Testing is individualized based on the characteristics
o f the child. Evaluations from the Birth-to-Three record included one or more o f the
following assessments: parent report, clinical observations, the BatteUe Developmental
Inventory (BDI), Mullen Scales o f Early Learning (MSEL), Peabody Gross Motor
Assessment Scales, Pre-School Language Scale-3 (PLS-3), Infant-Toddler Developmental
Assessment (IDA), and/or the Goldman-Fristoe Test o f Articulation (GITA).
2e. Parenting Stress Index/Short-Form (PSI/SF): The Parenting Stress Index/Short-
Form (Abidin, 1995b) was used to assess parental perceptions regarding the stress of
parenting then: disabled child. The PSI/SF includes 36 questions from the foil length PSI.
The PSI measures stressors related to parenting and being a parent (Crowley, 1995).
Scoring followed the standard procedures for scoring the PSI/SF. Two tests that had a
single item missing were scored through assigning the missing item the mean score for its
subscale as specified in the PSI manual (Abidin, 1995a).
The Parenting Stress Index/Short-Form (PSI/SF) is a self-report measure asking
parents to give their initial responses to various items related to parenting the child they
are most concerned about. For this research, parents were asked to respond related to
their child with developmental delays and feeding problems. The PSI/SF includes 36 items
rated using a five point Likert type scale, with most items asking for a response ranging
from Strongly Agree to Strongly Disagree. It takes approximately ten minutes for parents
to complete (Abidin, 1995a).
There are three subscale scores and a total score derived from the PSI/SF. The PSI/SF
subscales are Parental Distress (PD), the Parent-Child Dysfunctional Interaction (P-CDI),
and the Difficult Child (DC). Also included is a Defensive Responding (DR) scale that
Reproduced with permission o fthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
53
assesses if parents are trying to present an image that they do not have the normal
emotional stresses associated with parenting. A DR raw score below 10 may suggest the
parent is approaching the questionnaire with a strong bias toward presenting a favorable
impression and minimizing indications o f parenting stress (Abidin, 1995a).
The Parental Distress subscale assesses stress related to the parent role " . . . as a
function o f personal factors that are directly related to parenting" (Abidin, 1995a, p.55).
Component stresses o f the PD subscale include perceived parental incompetence, lacking
social support, conflict with the other parent, and depression (a known correlate of
dysfunctional parenting). Statements include: "I feel trapped by my responsibilities as a
parent" and "Having a child has caused more problems than I expected in my relationship
with my spouse (male/female friend)" (Abidin, 1995b). The Parental Distress subscale
assesses feelings o f sadness related to the parental role. Choosing Strongly Agree results
in the highest possible score for an item (Abidin, 1995a). A score o f above 36 in Parental
Distress (above the 90th percentile) is considered indicative o f the need for intervention,
which could include parent counseling or parent support groups (Cowen, 1998).
The Parent-Child Dysfunctional Interaction (P-CDI) subscale focuses on the parent's
stresses related to interactions with his/her child and the child not meeting parental
expectations. Statements include "My child smiles at me much less than I expected" and
"Sometimes my child does things that bother me just to be mean" (Abidin, 1995b). The
Parent-Child Dysfunctional Interaction subscale addresses the parent’s experience of
interacting with the child. The highest score for an item is given to parents who strongly
agree with the statements. A mean score o f 28 or higher on this subscale reflects a
Reproduced with permission o fthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
54
parent’s feelings that the child is a negative element hi their life, and rapid intervention is
indicated for these parents (Cowen, 1998).
The Difficult Child (DC) subscale focuses on behavioral characteristics of the child
that determine how difficult the child is to manage. Statements include "My child seems to
cry or foss more often than most children" and "My child's sleeping or eating schedule was
much harder to establish than I expected” (Abidin, 1995b). These questions on the
Difficult Child subscale assess the parent's view of their child's problems and the difficulty
of meeting then: child’s needs. A response o f Strongly Agree results in the highest possible
score for an item (Abidin. 1995a). Abidin (1995a) states that parents with high scores on
the Difficult Child (DC) subscale " . . . Regardless o f the cause o f the problems. . .
usually need professional assistance" (p.56). A score greater than 36 (above the 90th
percentile) reflects a parent’s feelings that the child is a negative part of the parent’s life
and indicates the need for rapid intervention (Cowen. 1998).
The Total Stress score is a summation o f the subscale scores, and indicates the overall
level of stress experienced within the parent role (Abidin, 1995b). Abidin (1995b)
describes parents who obtain a Total Stress score above a raw score of 90 (at or above the
90th percentile) as experiencing clinically significant levels o f stress. Referrals related to a
total raw score of 90 or higher usually lead to individualized treatment to promote family
coping and a safe environment for the child (Cowen, 1998).
The test-retest reliability and alpha for the total score o f the PSI Short-Form are .84
and .91 respectively. Subscale reliability and alpha for PD are .85 and .87, for P-CDI .68
and .87, and for DC .78 and .85 (Abidin, 1995b). No data on reliability o f the short form
are available specific to young children with developmental disabilities. However,
Reproduced with permission o fthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
55
Crowley (1995) has documented similar levels o f reliability for the parents o f young
children with developmental disabilities using the foil length PSI. Correlations between
the PSI/SF and foil length PSI scores indicate that the short-form has comparable
reliability to the foil length PSI (Abidin, 1995a).
No data on validity o f the short form are available specific to young children with
developmental disabilities. However, several studies with the foil length PSI have
demonstrated concurrent and construct validity, as well as discriminate validity for families
of children with various physical and mental disabilities (Innocenti et al., 1992). DeMaso
et a l (1990) in a study o f children with congenital heart disease found scores on the PSI to
be strongly correlated with child adjustment scores on the Child Behavior Checklist.
3. Procedures
3a. Contacting Subjects: The foDowing steps were followed m obtaining the sample: 1)
Service providers from Birth-to-Three Program agencies were contacted by this
researcher 2) Permission to request volunteers for the study was obtained from agency
directors 3) Direct service providers were briefed on the study and given written materials
and consent forms to distribute to families who met the study criteria 4) Direct service
providers obtained signed consent forms from families who volunteered to participate in
the study 5) Direct service providers provided the researcher with prospective subjects',
names and phone numbers of these, and 6) The researcher contacted prospective subjects
to arrange for an interview at their convenience.
After 21 subjects were obtained through the above procedure, the researcher was
unable to obtain additional subjects through this method. Ten additional subjects were
then recruited through the Internet (e.g. Family Voices, Dysphagia, and G-tube Hstserv
Reproduced with permission o fthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
56
sites), Down Syndrome Congress newsletter, referral from pediatric occupational
therapists, and referral from parents o f children with developmental disabilities.
Twenty-four o f the 31 interviews were done in the child's home at a time convenient to
the parents. Two parents were interviewed at work during then lunch hour at their
request. The remaining 5 interviews were done by phone, 4 because the parents lived out
o f state and one at the specific request o f the family. Telephone interviews were done
only after no more subjects could be recruited for in-person interviews.
For eight ofthe 31 subjects the PSI-Short Form was presented by the researcher
verbally (rather than done through parents fining out the form), with the parents’ selections
marked by the researcher. The eight verbal presentations ofthe PSI-SF included five
parents who were interviewed by telephone, two parents interviewed in person who were
unable to read, and one parent interviewed in person who chose not to stop holding her
newborn infant.
3b. Steps in interview, time required, and order: The following steps were followed
with the 26 parents who were interviewed in person: I) Before the interview, a signed
Informed Consent Form (Appendix H or Appendix I) was obtained from the parent and
demographic information about the family was collected from their Birth-to-Three chart.
2) The interview began with the demographic questions, followed by the Feeding
Questionnaire. 3) After the Feeding Questionnaire was completed, parents were asked to
fill out the Parenting Stress Index/Short-Form and the Information About You Form (the
researcher usually played with or fed the child while the parent filled out the PSL/SF). 4)
Parents were mailed a Toys R Us gift certificate and a thank you note within two weeks
following the interview.
Reproduced with permission o fthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
57
For the Feeding Questionnaire, questions followed the written format o f the Feeding
Questionnaire, but were discussed in a conversational way rather than word for word.
Items were marked as the parent spoke. Parents were given a copy o f the Feeding
Questionnaire (Appendix D) to look at while the researcher asked the questions verbally.
Ten o f the thirty-one interviews were also tape recorded and reviewed for accuracy
following the parent visit No differences in scaled item scoring were found based on the
interviews, but direct quotes were taken from the tape recorded interviews for
consideration in the impressions section of this dissertation.
For the five parents interviewed by telephone the following steps were foDowed:
I) Before the interview, the parents were sent a self-addressed stamped envelope by the
researcher and asked to fill out and return the Informed Consent Form and send a copy of
the child’s Birth-to-Three evaluations. 2) The interview was conducted through a
telephone call at a time established by e-mail or previous telephone contact to be most
convenient for the parent. 3) The Feeding Questionnaire, Demographic Interview,
Parenting Stress Index-Short Form, and Information About You Form questions were all
completed by phone. Parents were mailed a Toys R Us gift certificate and a thank you
note within two weeks following the interview.
Reproduced with permission o fthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHAPTER IV
RESULTS
58
Reproduced with permission o fthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
59
Introduction
This chapter presents information that answers the research questions o f this paper.
These questions are addressed sequentially. For Question I, Difficult or frustrating
aspects o f feeding, responses to the open-ended questions are reported first. Responses to
the scale questions are then described, specifying the percentage o f parents rating problem
frequency as 3 or 4 (e.g. problem occurs more than half the time), and the percentage
rating problem frustration as 3 or 4 (on a continuum with 4 = Extremely Frustrating).
Next, problem intensity is calculated as the product, of frequency and frustration. The
means and standard deviations are given. Two types o f problem intensity scores are
provided, which describe different aspects of parents’ frustration related to feeding.
Problem Intensity I assigns a score o f 0 if the problem does not occur (e.g., problem
frequency is 0). Problem Intensity 2 omits responses in which problem frequency was
rated as 0. For Question 2. Rewarding aspects o f feeding, the open-ended and scale scored
questions related to rewarding feeding behaviors are considered. For the scale questions,
the percent of parents rating positive behavior frequency as 3 or 4 (e.g. positive behavior
occurs more than half the time) is described.
For Question 3. Parent’s overall satisfaction with feeding, the results from the four
scale questions are described In Section C, parents rate the frequency of occurrence of
age appropriate child feeding abilities. Ratings are done using the same frequency scale
described for Section B (see Appendix D).
For Question 4, Relationship o f parenting stress to parents’ perceptions o f feeding costs,
rewards, and overall feeding satisfaction, the correlations between parenting stress and
Reproduced with permission o fthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
60
parents' perceptions o f feeding are described using the Parenting Stress Index/Short-Form
(PSI/SF). Parenting stress on the PSI/SF is reported by providing raw scores for Total
Stress and the three subdomainsof Parental Distress, Parent-Child Dysfunctional
Interaction, and Difficult Child. First, the PSI/SF Total Stress and subdomain raw scores
are reported for the parents in this study. Then the correlations between the total stress
and three subdomain raw scores are reported.
Following this description o f parenting stress, relationships between the demographic
variables and parenting stress are described. The relationship between these major
demographic factors and parenting stress describes the context in which parent’s feeding
perceptions occur.
Consideration is then given to the relationship between parenting stress and parents’
perceived feeding costs. Individual parent’s total problem frequency, frustration, and
problem intensity 1 scores are described, and each of these summary scores is correlated
with parenting stress. Because no significant relationships were found between the
summary scores and parenting stress, as a next step it was decided to consider the feeding
problem behaviors individually.
The frequency, frustration, and intensity scores for each of the 16 problematic feeding
behaviors are correlated with the PSI/SF Total Stress and subdomain scores. Significant
correlations between feeding behavior scores and parenting stress are described, while the
high degree o f error introduced by the large number of correlations that were considered
is noted.
Next, the correlations between parenting stress and positive feeding behaviors are
considered. First, the relationship between total scores for positive feeding behaviors and
Reproduced with permission o fthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
61
parenting stress is described. Because no significant relationship between these total
scores and parenting stress was found, correlations between parents’ scores on the items
that compose the positive feeding behavior totals were considered hi order to assess
internal constancy for this measure. Because there were no significant correlations
between the scores on specific items and the positive feeding behavior total, the
relationship between specific positive feeding problem behaviors and parenting stress is
considered. One highly significant correlation between a specific feeding behavior and
parenting stress is described. However, the error introduced by the high number of
correlations considered also is noted
In Question 5, Regarding parents’ perceptions of feeding treatment, parents’
descriptions of three factors related to Birth-to-Three feeding intervention are described.
First, the relationship between the parents’ level of parenting stress and whether or not
their child received feeding intervention is considered. Second, parents’ perceptions ofthe
impact of feeding intervention are categorized and correlated with parenting stress. Third,
parents’ perceptions of feeding intervention are categorized regarding the degree o f match
between the parents’ feeding goals and the goals in the child’s DFSP (Individual Family
Service Plan; goals section o f the child’s Birth-to-Three record). Then the relationship
between parenting stress scores and the degree to which parent and IFSP feeding goals
matched is described.
Question 1: What components of feeding do parents of toddlers/preschoolers who
have developmental and eating problems describe as difficult and frustrating?
1A. Open-ended Questions
Reproduced with permission o fthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
62
Parents’ responses to the open-ended questions related to feeding problems were
reviewed to answer research question 1. Parents’ responses were categorized for the
questions regarding parents’ greatest feeding concerns, what they find most frustrating in
feeding, and areas o f feeding they need help with. Parents gave one to four responses to
each question, and the percentage o f parents mentioning each category was calculated (see
Appendix I for reliability details).
In describing their greatest concerns in feeding their child, the child getting adequate
nutrition, vitamins, calories, and/or liquid by mouth was by far the most frequently
mentioned concern (Table 5). This category was mentioned by approximately two-fifths
of the parents, and far exceeded ail other responses. The next most frequently mentioned
categories, were the limited diet parents could offer (11%); self-feeding, utensil, and cup
use(9%); and their child refusing to eat (9%).
Reproduced with permission o fthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
63
Tables
Rank Order o f Greatest Feeding Concerns
Greatest Concerns CategoryFrequency Percent
I.Child getting adequate nutridon/vitamins/calories/li quid orally
17 37.8
2 .Limited diet parent can offer
5 11.1
3. Self-feeding, utensils, and cup use
4 8.8
4.Child refuses to eat 4 8.8
5 .Chewing/swaQo wing/oral- motor ability
3 6.6
6 Ambiguous/ Other 2 4.4
7JFeeding tube concerns 2 4.48.Vomitmg or reflux 2 4.49 .Persistence of eating problems
2 4.4
10-MeaItimes are unpleasant 2 4.411.Oral sensory oversensitivity
1 2 2
12.Won’t eat too much fet 1 2.2
In describing the most frustrating aspects o f feeding then: child, refusing the food that
was offered was most commonly mentioned. Refusing the food offered was mentioned by
nearly a third of the parents (Table 6). The next most frequently mentioned category was
then child’s unhappy and/or negative behaviors, described by approximately one quarter
o f the parents. Approximate one tenth o f the parents mentioned oral-motor problems, and
the child not communicating food preferences.
Reproduced with permission o fthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
64
Table 6
Rank Order o f Greatest Frustrations in Feeding
Most frustrating in feeding Frequencies Percent
1 .Refuses food offered 15 30.6
2.Unhappy and/or negative behaviors
11 22.4
3.Oral motor problems (taking food with lips, chewing, swallowing)
6 12.2
4.Does not communicate food wants/ doesn't want
4 8.2
5 .Need to coerce/distract child so eats
3 6.1
6.Child not taking enough food
3 6.1
7Xnnited types o f foods can give Child
3 6.1
8.Child stuffs mouth with food
I 2
9.Special feeding equipment I 2tO.Too time consuming to feed
I 2
11. Ambiguous/other I 2
Regarding the aspects of feeding they needed help with, approximately one fifth of the
parents reported needing help with then: child accepting a variety o f foods and/or new
foods, and one-fifth described needing help with improving oral-motor skills (Table 7).
The next most frequently mentioned needs for feeding assistance, each mentioned by
approximately one tenth ofthe parents, were evaluating and progressing their child's
feeding development, suggestions regarding types o f food to offer, interpersonal and/or
interactional feeding strategies, and other people doing the feeding and/or cleanup.
Reproduced with permission o fthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
65
Table 7
Ranlr Order of Feeding Areas with which Parents Indicated Needing Help
Category o f Feeding Areas Parents Need Help WithFrequency Percent
1 .Child accepting a variety o f foods and/or new foods 9 18.82.Improving oral-motor skills (chewing, positioning for eating, swallowing, tongue/lip use)
9 18.8
3.Evaluating and progressing Child's feeding development 4 8.34.Suggestions regarding types o f foods to give 4 835.Interpersonal and/or interactional eating strategies 4 836 .Assistance with doing the actual feeding and/or cleanup 4 837.Techniques to improve self-feeding skills 3 638.Ambiguus/other 3 639 .Integrating strategies to improve feeding skills into the families routines
2 4 3
10 .Many or all aspects o f feeding 2 4.2Il.Tube feeding techniques 2 4 312/Nothing 2 4 3
A second method also was used in categorizing parents’ needs for assistance with
feeding. The second categorization focused on the types o f coping resources needed by
parents (see Appendix I for specifics on reliability). Parents’ responses fell into three
categories: Feeding techniques/strategies, social support, and no support. The number
and percent o f parents identifying the need for help with each o f these categories is
presented in Table 8. In this second categorization o f needs for feeding assistance, help
with feeding techniques/strategies was mentioned by most of the parents. The next most
commonly mentioned category was social support, mentioned by approximately one fifth
o f the parents. The least frequently mentioned category was not needing support with
feeding, mentioned by less than ten percent o f the parents.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
66
TableS
Method 2 Areas o f Feeding Parents Indicated Needing Retp With: Frequency & Percent (Total N=30)
Mentioned as Category Parent Needed Help With
Frequency Percent
Feeding Techniques/Strategies Only
27 90.0
Social Support 6 20.0Both FeedingTechniques/Strategies and Social Support Mentioned
5 16.7
No support needed 2 6.7
IB. Scale Scored Questions
Following analyses o f the open-ended questions, responses to the scaled items related
to feeding concerns were assessed. The feeding questionnaire listed problems related to
feeding and parents rated how frequently their child demonstrated the problem.
The parents reported that most o f their child’s problematic feeding behaviors occurred less
than three-quarters o f the time (Table J l, Appendix J). As a next step, ratings o f 3 and 4
were combined to determine feeding problems that occurred more than fifty percent o f the
time (Table 9). For problematic feeding behaviors occurring more than fifty percent o f the
time, over half o f the families mentioned refusing age appropriate food textures. The next
most common problem, their child refusing eating enough, was mentioned by just under
half the parents. Approximately one third reported their child needed distractions to eat
and one third reported their child spit out food. Responses to the questions about feeding
concerns also identified behaviors that did not present problems for this group o f parents.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
67
Table 9
Rank order o f Feeding Problems Occurring More than H alf the Time
Feeding Problem Problem occurs
more than half the
time (3 or 4)
N
1. Refuses age appropriate food textures
16(53.3%)
30
2.Refuses eating enough
15(48.4%)
31
3. Refuses food unless distracted
9(30.0%)
30
4. Spits out food 9(30.0%)
30
For each problem that occurred, the parents also rated the degree o f frustration they
experienced while the problem was occurring. Parents were asked to rate the level of
frustration they experienced from 0 Not Frustrating to 4 Extremely Frustrating. Parents’
ratings o f their degree o f frustration for each feeding problem are presented in Appendix
J2.
The valid percent o f parents rating each problem as causing high frustration was
assessed by combining frustration ratings o f 3 and 4 for each feeding problem (Table 10).
The problem most often rated as high frustration (e.g. rated 3 or 4) was refuses eating
enough, which was identified by four-fifths o f the parents as highly frustrating. The next
most commonly described high frustration behaviors were: crying, described by nearly
four-fifths o f the parents; refusing to drink enough, identified by slightly under three-
quarters of the parents; and lacking adequate posture for eating and choking on food,
which both were identified by three-fifths o f the parents.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
68
Table 10
Rank Order n f High Frustration Feeding Problems
Feedina Problem N(Number
whoidentifiedproblem)
3 or 4
1. Refuses eating enough
21 17(80.9%)
2.Crying during meals 19 15(79%)
3. Refuses drinking enough
11 8(72.7%)
4. Lacking postural control for eating
10 6(60%)
5.Choking on food 22 13(59.0%)
Problem Intensity 1 was used to describe the parents' overall dissatisfaction related to
each feeding problem (Table J3 and Table 11). Scores bad a possible range o f 0 to 16.
The mean problem intensity score was highest for refusing eating enough (M = 7.20. SD =
7.92, Table 13). Other categories with a mean intensity score over 4. in rank order, were
refusing age appropriate textures o f food (M = 6.13, SD = 6.06), spitting out food (M =
4.98, SD = 6.20), and crying during meals (M = 4.06, SD = 5.13). However, the mean
problem intensity scores in Tables 13 and 14 may not be representative of the sample since
the standard deviation scores were so proportionally high. Fourteen o f the 16 problem
intensity scores had a standard deviation that exceeded the mean, and 4 o f the standard
deviation scores were more than twice as large as the mean.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
69
Table 11
Rank Order of Problem Intensity I: Means &l Standard Deviations
Feeding Problem Mean SD1 .Refuses eating enough 7.20 6.922. Refuses age appropriate food textures 6.13 6.063.Spits out food 4.98 6.204.Crying during meats 4.06 5.135.Choking on food 3.96 5.236. Takes too long to feed 3.96 5.23
Because the high standard deviation scores in Problem Intensity 1 suggested that the
mean problem intensity scores may have been influenced primarily by ratings of 0 for
problem occurrence (resulting in a product o f 0 for the problem intensity score), a second
analysis o f problem frustration was done excluding cases for which problem occurrence
was rated 0. This second analysis considered the degree of frustration experienced when
feeding problems occurred (Table J4 and Table 12).
Using this Problem Intensity 2 analysis, both eating enough and drinking enough
emerged with the highest mean problem intensity scores (Table 12). Refusing age
appropriate food textures (M = 8.76, SD = 5.38) and spitting out food (M = 8.06, SD =
6.10) continued to have high mean problem intensity scores. Lacking adequate postural
control for eating was fifth in rank-order with a mean of 7.90 (SD = 5.04), compared to a
mean o f 2.63 (SD = 4.72) in the previous analysis, suggesting that when they occurred
postural problems resulted in high overall frustration.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
70
Table 12
Rank Order o f Problem Intensity 2 Means: Means & Standard Deviations
Feeding Problem Mean SD1. Refuses drinking enough
9.64 6.74
2. Refuses eating enough
9.62 6.36
3. Refuses age appropriate food textures
8.76 5.38
4. Spits out food 8.06 6.105.Laddng postural control for eating well
7.90 5.04
Question 2: W hat components of feeding do parents of toddlers/preschoolers who
have identified developmental and eating problems describe as rewarding?
2A. Open-ended Questions
A single open-ended question was used to consider the feeding behavior parents’
described as rewarding. The positive feeding behaviors mentioned by the parents are
presented in Table 13 (see Appendix I for reliability information). The child accepts,
enjoys, and/or takes new food by mouth was by far the aspect o f feeding most commonly
described as rewarding. This behavior was mentioned as rewarding by approximately half
the families, and mentioned by more than twice as many families as any other feeding
behavior. The next most frequently mentioned feeding reward was Completion of
functional oral eating which was described by approximately one fifth of the families. The
child demonstrating progress in eating was the third most mentioned behavior. Use o f a
strategy that works and a sense o f nurturing interactions with the child were tied as the
fourth most mentioned rewarding feeding behaviors.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
71
Table 13
Rank Order o f Rewarding Feeding Behaviors Reported
Feeding Rewards N PercentChild accepts, enjoys, and/or takes new food by mouth 23 48.9%Completion o f functional oral eating 8 17.0%Child demonstrates progress in eating 6 12.8%Use o f strategy that works 3 6.4%Sense o f interaction with and/or nurturing of C 3 6.4%Child participates in self-feeding and/or uses utensils 2 4.2%Child’s weight gam I 2.1%Other/ambiguous statements I 2.1%
2B. Scale Scored Questions
For positive feeding behaviors, only the frequency o f occurrence of behaviors was
considered. Parents’ ratings of the frequency of occurrence o f positive feeding behaviors
are presented in Table J5. The percentage of parents reporting that the positive feeding
behaviors occurred more than half the time are presented in Table 14. Of these the most
commonly reported positive feeding behavior that occurred more than half the time was
keeping food in the mouth, which was reported by more than four-fifths o f the parents.
The next most commonly mentioned positive feeding behaviors which occurred more than
half the time (all reported by at least half the parents) were accepting the touch of the
spoon; sitting long enough to complete the meal; and opening the mouth for the spoon.
These commonly reported positive feeding behaviors reflect feeding skills that occur
earliest in normal development (Glass & Wolf 1998).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
72
Table 14
Positive Feeding Behaviors Occurring More than H alf the Time
Positive Feeding Behaviors N Percent
Keeping food in mouth 25 80.7%
Accepting touch of spoon 22 71.0%
Sitting long enough to ea t 21 67.8%
Opens mouth for spoon 18 59.7%
Lips take food off spoon 17 58.6%
Accepting wiping offeree 15 50%
Question 3: How do parents of toddlers/preschoolers who have identified
developmental and eating problems rate their overall satisfaction with feeding?
Four rating scales were used to describe parents’ overall satisfaction with feeding.
These included three items rating level o f satisfaction, and one item involving ranking
feeding among other child-care tasks. For the three satisfaction level rating items parents
rated their overall satisfaction with various aspects of feeding on a scale from I-Very
Unsatisfied to 5-Very Satisfied (Tables 15-18).
Table 15
Overall Satisfaction with the Experience o f Feeding
Rating Frequency Valid Percentl-Very Unsatisfied 5 172 4 143 8 284 9 315-Very Satisfied 3 10
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
73
The parents’ ratings of their overall satisfaction with feeding their child indicated
considerable diversity among the parents in this area. As indicated in Table 15, while 17%
were Very Satisfied, 10% were Very Unsatisfied. The mean o f 3.03 (SD = 1.27) was
close to midpoint between the ratings o f very satisfied and very unsatisfied.
The parent's ratings o f overall satisfaction with the amount o f feeding support they
received also indicated great diversity across the parents. More than half the parents rated
their overall satisfaction with their amount o f feeding support positively (with scores o f 4
or 5), while nearly two fifths gave negative ratings of feeding support satisfaction (scores
o f 1 or 2). The mean rating was 3.66 (SD = 1.34).
Table 16
Overall Satisfaction with Feeding Support
Rating Frequency Valid Percent1-Very Unsatisfied 3 102 2 73 6 214 8 285-Very Satisfied 10 35
Parents’ overall satisfaction with the balance they had between feeding their child,
other family responsibilities, personal interests, and work responsibilities also indicated
strong diversity among the parents. While approximately one-fifth o f the parents indicated
the lowest possible satisfaction rating, one-fifth indicated the highest possible rating (Table
17). The mean o f 2.98 (SD = 1.44) was close to midpoint between the ratings o f Very
Unsatisfied and Very Satisfied.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
74
Table 17
Overall Satisfaction with Balance Between Feeding and Other Responsibilities
Rating Frequency Valid PercentI-Very Unsatisfied 7 232 3 103 9 304 5 175-Very Satisfied 6 20
Parents ranked feeding and their other child care tasks in terms o f enjoyability (Table
18). Parents’ ranking o f feeding as a child-care task showed some variability, but was the
only measure of overall feeding for which the ratings were highly unfavorable. Nearly half
the parents ranked feeding as their least enjoyable child-care task, while less than one-fifth
o f parents ranked feeding above the middle level m enjoyability.
Table 18
Overall Ranking o f Feeding Favorabilitv
Ranking Frequency ValidPercent
l-Least favorite 15 482-Among the less favorable 4 133-MTddIe 7 264-Among the more favorable 4 135-Most favorite I 3
Question 4: How do parents’ perceptions of feeding costs, rewards, and overall
satisfaction with feeding relate to parenting stress?
The relationship between parents’ perceptions o f feeding and parenting stress was
assessed using the Parenting Stress Index/Short Form (PSI/SF). The PSI/SF includes the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
75
Parental Distress (PD), Parent-Child Dysfunctional Interaction (P-CDI), and Difficult
Child (DC) subscales and a Total Stress score (which is the sum o f scores o f the three
subscales). The PSI/SF also includes a Defensive Responding (DR) scale to assess if
parent’s scores’ may be biased because they are trying to present themselves in a positive
manner.
4A. PSI/SF Scores
Scores on the PSI/SF for the 31 parents in the sample are presented in Table 19.
Scores for the Parental Distress subscale had a mean o f 31.58, ranging from 17 to 50. The
mean for Parent-Child Dysfunctional Interaction was 24.23. ranging from 13 to 35. and
the mean for the Difficult Child subscale was 33.29, ranging from 16 to 52. The Total
Stress score had a mean of 89.10. with raw scores ranging from 53 to 124.
Parents in this study had a mean score of 18.9 on the DR scale, ranging from 8 to 29.
Only one parent had a DR raw score below 10. a raw score of 8. which suggests that this
parent may have been trying to present a positive image by miniinizing the stresses
associated with parenting.
Scores for the parents on all three subdomains and Total Stress indicated extremely
high levels o f stress in comparison with the normative sample. Table 19 indicates that the
mean scores for the parents on the Difficult Child subscale was at the 85th percentile.
Parental Distress at the 80th percentile, and Parent-Child Dysfunctional Interaction at the
75th percentile, all above the expected mean percentile o f 50. The mean Total Stress score
is at the 88th percentile, just below the 90* percentile level which is considered to be a
clinically relevant stress level requiring intervention (Abidin, 1995a).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
76
Table 19
PSI/SF Total Stress and Subdomain Raw Scores (N = 31)
PSI Section Mean Minimum Maximum SD Percentile(StressLevel)
DefensiveResponding
18.90 8 29 5.70
ParentalDistress
31.58 17 50 9.54 s o 111
Parent-Child Dysfunctional Interaction
2423 13 35 5.51 75*
DifficultChild
3329 16 52 934 85*
Total Stress 89.10 53 124 1736
*coOO
The correlations among the subdomain and total stress scores on the PSI/SF are presented
in Table 20. The positive correlation between the Difficult Child and Parent-Child
Dysfunctional Interaction subdomain was significant at the .01 IeveL, but the Parental
Distress subdomain was not significantly correlated with either the Difficult Child or the
Parent-Child Dysfunctional Interaction subdomains.
Table 20
Pearson Correlations o f PSI/SF Total Stress and Subdomain Raw Scores (N=3t).
PSI/SF(Sub)domam
Parental Distress Parent-ChildDysfunctionalInteraction
Difficult Child
Parental Distress - 243 .171(-094) (.179)
Parent-Child 243 - 428**Dysfunctional (.094) (.008)InteractionDifficult Child .171 .428** -
(-179) (.008)Total Stress .710** .673** .759**
(.0001) (.0001) (.0001)^^Correlation significant at the .01 evei
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
77
4B. Relationship between demographic variables and parenting stress
Before assessing the relationship between feeding behaviors and parenting stress,
consideration was given to the relationship between stress and specific demographic
factors related to feeding that the literature suggests may be related to parenting stress.
The relationship between demographic variables and parenting stress was assessed
through the correlation (at the .05 level) o f demographic variables with PSI/SF Total
Stress and subdomain raw scores (Parental Distress, Difficult Child, and Parent-Child
Dysfunctional Interaction).
The negative correlation between the primary feeder’s education level and PSI/SF
Total Stress and subdomain raw scores were not significant. However, the negative
correlation between the primary feeder’s education level and the Parent-Child
Dysfunctional Interaction subdomain approached significance at the .056 level (r = -.292.
g = .056). The relationship between annual household income and parenting stress was
also considered. Because the literature supports a negative correlation between socio
economic status and parenting stress on the PSI/SF, one-tailed significance was assessed.
The negative correlations between annual household income and parenting stress on the
PSI/SF were not significant.
The next demographic consideration was whether there were significant differences in
parenting stress related to child factors o f diagnosis and tube feeding status. An
independent samples t-test was done to assess differences in PSI Total Stress raw scores
between parents of children in the Pervasive Developmental Disorder and Cerebral Palsy
diagnostic category groups. No significant difference was found (PDD: M =88.17, SD
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
78
= 22.43, N = 6; CP: M = 86.67, SD =12.87, N=12; p = .88). An independent samples t-
test also showed no significant differences in PSI Total Stress raw scores between parents
o f children receiving tube feeding and not receiving tube feeding (Tube: M =
93.75; SD = 20.86; N = 8; No Tube: M = 87.96, SD = 16.78, N = 23; p = .44).
4C. Relationship between Feeding Costs and Parenting Stress
The considerable time required for feeding young children with developmental and
eating problems is a frequently mentioned feeding cost. Factors related to the
responsibilities o f the primary feeder were correlated (for 2-tailed significance at the .05
level) with raw scores on PSI/SF total stress and three subdomain raw scores. One
significant positive correlation was found between the percent o f feeding done by the
primary feeder and parenting stress on the Parent-Child Dysfunctional Interaction
subdomain (r = .404, p = .027). There was no significant correlation between the average
total time required daily for feeding (all eating and drinking assistance and/or direct
supervision including tube feeding done by all feeders) and PSI/SF scores. There was also
no significant correlation between hours worked by the primary feeder and parenting
stress.
For each parent total scores for problem frequency, frustration, and intensity were
calculated. The totals were then correlated with the PSI/SF raw scores. No significant
correlations were found between these total scores for problem frequency, frustration, or
intensity I and the PSI/SF raw scores for total stress or any o f the subdomain scores.
Because the total frequency, frustration, and intensity scores were not related to
parenting stress, coefficient alpha was calculated to look at the internal consistency for the
problem frequency, frustration, and intensity scores, respectively. The problem frequency
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
79
items had a coefficient alpha of .61 (cases = 25, items = 16), indicating internal
consistency o f these scores as a group. Problem frustration items had a coefficient alpha
o f .47 suggesting they did not correlate well as a group (cases = 20, items = 16). Problem
intensity I items had a coefficient alpha o f .63 (cases = 22, items = 16), indicating
moderate to high consistency of these scores as a group.
Because the correlations between parenting stress and the three summary scores
described above were not significant, correlations with parenting stress were calculated for
the individual items. Thus, a separate correlation for each measure of parenting stress was
calculated for each of the questions concerning problem frequency, each o f the questions
concerning frustration, and each o f the questions concerning intensity. The relationship
between each of these feeding behavior ratings and parenting stress on the PSI/SF Total
Stress and subdomains was assessed (Table 21). Significant positive correlations with
parenting stress were found for the following feeding behavior ratings: refusing/resisting
age appropriate textures o f food, stuffing food, stuffing food frustration, and stuffing food
intensity.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
80
Table 21
Significant Relationships between Problem Feeding Behaviors & PSI/SF Raw Scores
Feeding Behaviors PearsonCorrelation
PSI/SF(Sub)domain
2-tailedSignificance
N
Refuse/resist age appropriate textures of food
.464 DC .010 30
Stuffs food .542 PD .002 31
.512 DC 7003
.592 Total Stress .0001*Stuffs food Frustration .784 PD .004 II
.748 p<ibi 7008
Stuffs food Intensity
.585 PD .001* 30
.595 Total Stress .001** Indicates a significance level o f .001 or .0001, all ot ter correlation .01
la these analyses a high number o f correlations was assessed. The correlations o f the
individual feeding problem frequency, frustration, and problem intensity I scores with the
PSI/SF Total Stress and 3 subdomain raw scores involved a total o f 192 correlations. The
high number of correlations done introduced a high probability of error (at the .01
significance level used, 2 significant correlations would be expected to occur by chance).
As a result, caution must be noted in interpreting these results.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
81
4D. Relationship between feeding rewards and parenting stress
The mean summary score for parents* perceptions o f positive feeding behaviors was
20.6 with a standard deviation o f 5.7. There were no significant correlations at the .05
level between the total positive behavior sum and the PSI/SF Total Stress or subdomain
raw scores.
Because the total positive feeding behavior score was not related to parenting stress,
coefficient alpha was calculated to consider the internal consistency o f the positive feeding
behavior items. Scores on the positive feeding behavior items had a coefficient alpha o f
.47, suggesting they did not correlate well as a group (cases=20, items=l6).
Because the positive feeding behavior scores had low internal consistency and no
significant relationship with parenting stress as a group, correlations with PSI/SF total
stress and subdomain scores were considered for each item (alpha = .01). A very strong
negative correlation was found between sitting long enough to complete the meal and the
Difficult Child subdomain (r = -.594. g = .0001, N = 31). Despite the substantial number
o f correlations done between positive feeding behaviors and the PSI/SF raw scores (e.g.
32 total), the strength of the correlation between sitting long enough and the Difficult
Child subdomain suggests a real relationship.
4E. Relationship between parent’s overall feeding satisfaction and parenting stress
The correlations between measures o f overall satisfaction with feeding and PSI/SF
total stress and subdomain scores are presented in Table 22. The only significant
relationship found was a negative correlation between the PSI/SF Total Stress raw score
and overall satisfaction with the experience o f feeding (e.g. parents with lower ratings o f
satisfaction in their overall feeding experience had higher total stress levels). The negative
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
82
relationship between overall satisfaction with feeding support and the PSI/SF Total Stress
score approached significance. No significant relationship between PSI/SF total stress or
subdomain raw scores was found for ranking o f feeding enjoyability, overall satisfaction
with feeding support, or overall satisfaction with the balance between feeding and other
aspects o f the feeder’s life.
Table 22
Relationship Between Overall Feeding Satisfaction and Parenting Stress
Overall Satisfaction Measure Parental Distress Parent-ChildDysfunctional
Interaction
DifficultChild
TotalStress
1. Where would you rank feeding as a -.182 .004 -.184 -282child care task in terms of favorability? (.406) (.984) (.400) (.192)
N=23 N=23 N=23 N=232. Overall, how satisfied are you with -.242 -.166 -205) -274the experience of feeding your child? (.205) (-390) (286) (.046)
N=29 N=29 N=29 N=293. Overall, how satisfied are you with the -.179 -.238 -.094 -.336amount o f support you have with feeding? (.352) (2214) (.629) (.075)
N=29 N=29 N=29 N=294. How satisfied are you with your -.171 .069 .079 -.103balance between other family (.365) (.716) (.679) (.587)responsibilities, personal interests and work responsibilities?
N=30 N=29 N=29 N=29
Significant relationship in bo idm,relationship approaching significance in italics 2-tailed
As a next step, the parents’ scores on the scale questions regarding overall feeding
satisfaction were assessed to determine if there were significant differences between the
responses of parents who had children with PDD/Autism and parents who had children
with Cerebral Palsy. Comparison o f the mean scores o f these two groups o f parents (2-
tailed independent t-test) indicated that the ratings o f overall satisfaction with the feeding
experience were significantly lower for parents o f children with PDD/Autism than for
parents o f children with Cerebral Palsy (PDD: M - 2. SD =1.22. N = 5: CP: M = 3.58. SD
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
83
= 1.24, N = 12; t = -2.41, g = .029). The mean scale scores on overall feeding satisfaction
for parents who had children with PDD was 2.0, indicating parents were Unsatisfied (on a
scale from t-Very Unsatisfied to 5-Very Satisfied), while parents of children with CP had
a mean score of 3.6, indicating a satisfaction level slightly above average.
T-tests showed no significant differences between parents o f children with CP and
PDD/Autism on mean ratings o f overall satisfaction with feeding support, satisfaction with
the primary feeder’s balance between feeding and other personal responsibilities, or
ranking o f feeding favorability among child care tasks.
Question 5: What are parents’ perceptions of the Birth-to-Three Program’s feeding
intervention?
5A. Relationship between feeding intervention and parenting stress
Consideration of parent’s perceptions o f feeding intervention began by assessing the
percent o f families receiving feeding intervention as part o f their Birth-to-Three Program.
Twenty-three of the parents (76.7%) reported that feeding treatment was part of their
child’s Birth-to-Three Program, while seven (23.3%) reported that feeding treatment was
not included. No significant differences in parental stress were expected on the bases o f
whether parents received feeding treatment (because o f the special circumstances o f those
not receiving Birth-to-Three feeding treatment e.g., receiving feeding treatment from
outside of Birth-to-Three, or no longer needing feeding treatment) this relationship was
felt to be important to assess. As expected, an independent samples t-test showed no
significant differences in parental stress between parents receiving and not receiving Birth-
to-Three feeding treatmenL
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
84
SB. Parents* perceptions of the impact of feeding intervention
The second consideration regarding parent’s perceptions o f feeding intervention was
then* description of the impact o f feeding intervention. These descriptions were
categorized using the five response categories in Table 23. A total o f twenty-six families
(83.9%) responded to this question, with two-fifths o f the families reporting feeding
intervention had a positive impact only, and one-fifth reporting that feeding intervention
had both positive and negative impacts. Parents who described feeding intervention as
having both positive and negative impacts described the positive impact of therapists
guiding them in strategies to promote their child’s feeding skills, and the negative impact
o f implications from the therapists that parents were not doing enough to help improve
their child’s feeding skills. Approximately ten percent of parents described feeding
intervention as having no impact. Ten percent described treatment as having a negative
impact only, and ten percent gave an ambiguous response that could not be categorized.
Table 23
Rank Order Descriptions o f the Impact o f Feeding Intervention
Response Category Frequency ValidPercent
1 .Positive Impact Only 11 42J
2J3oth Positive and Negative Impacts
6 23.1
3. No Impact 3 11.54. Negative Impact Only 3 11.55. Ambiguous 3 11.5
The mean Total Stress scores for parents in each o f these groups are presented m Table
24. An independent t-test was used to compare the PSI/SF Total Stress raw scores for
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
parents who perceived feeding treatment as having either a positive impact or both
positive and negative impacts with parents who perceived feeding as having no impact or a
negative impact only. Parents who perceived feeding treatment as having no impact or a
negative impact had significantly higher PSI/SF Total Stress raw scores (M = 106.67,
SD = 10.99, N = 6) than parents describing feeding treatment as having a positive impact
or both positive and negative impacts (M = 87.00, SD = 17.72, N = 17; t =2.530, p =
.019).
Table 24
PSI/SF Total Stress Scores for Parents Reporting Varying Treatment Impacts:Numher Mean, and Standard Deviation
Response Category N Mean StandardDeviation
t .Positive Impact Only II 87.64 16.772.Both Positive and Negative Impacts 6 85.83 20.973. No Impact 3 101.00 10.154. Negative Impact Only -% 11233 87.64
5C. Degree to which parents’ feeding goals match the goals in their child’s EFSP
The third step in considering parent’s perceptions o f Birth-to-Three feeding
intervention was determining the degree to which the parent's feeding goals matched the
feeding goals in the child’s EFSP (Individual Family Service Plan; the Birth-to-Three
Program treatment plan). Twenty parents described at least one feeding goal (64.5), while
10 parents (323%) also listed a second feeding goaL Assessment was made regarding the
degree to which the combined feeding goals in the child’s EFSP matched the parents’ goals
(see Appendix H for reliability information). For both the first and second parent feeding
goals, comparisons indicated that most often there was a partial match between parents’
goals and the IFSP goals (Table 25 and Table 26).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
86
Table 25
Match Between Parents First Feeding Goal and TFSP Goals ip Rank Order
Degree o f Match Frequency ValidPercent
I. Did Not Match 4 20
2. Partially Matched 9 45
3. Completely Matched 7 35
Table 26
Match Between Parents Second Feeding float and TFSP Goals in Rank Order
Degree of Match Frequency Valid Percent
1. Did Not Match 2 20
2. Partially Matched 5 50
3. Completely Matched 3 30
The relationship o f the degree o f match between the parent and IFSP goals with PSI/SF
Total Stress raw scores are described in Table 27 and Table 28. There appeared to be no
consistent pattern between the degree o f match o f parent goals and PSI/SF Total Stress
raw scores.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
87
Table 27
PSI/SF Total Stress Scores o f Parents Having DifferentLevels o f Agreement Between Parent Goal I and IFSP Goals: Total numher- M e a n , and Standard Deviation
Degree of Match N Mean Standard Deviation1. Did Not Match 4 81.50 25332. Partially Matched
9 8733 15.13
3.Completely Matched
7 101.00 1834
Table 28
PSI/SF Total Stress Scores o f Parents Having Different Levels o f Agreement Between Parent Goal 2 and IFSP Goals: Total numher Mean and Standard Deviation
Degree of Match N Mean Standard Deviation
1. Did Not Match 2 90.50 28.99
2. Partially Matched 5 84.40 22.29
3. Completely Matched
3 8133 731
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHAPTER V
DISCUSSION
88
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
89
Introduction
While there are a variety o f factors that limit the generalizeabflity o f this study, the
findings suggest some new perspectives which may be helpful in considering parents*
perceptions o f feeding young children with developmental and eating problems.
Approximately half o f the parents in this study rated feeding as their least enjoyable child
care task and had total stress scores at or above the 90* percentile on the PSI/SF,
indicating that they were **■... experiencing clinically significant levels o f stress” (Abidin,
p.55, 1995a). These and other findings from this study and the literature support the need
to increase the emphasis placed on parents' feeding perceptions.
The first section o f this chapter addresses findings suggesting the need for a greater
emphasis on parents’ feeding perceptions in Birth-to-Three programs. The second section
discusses parents’ perceptions o f feeding and feeding intervention. The next sections
discuss how the family systems, social exchange, and social comparison theories are
helpful for understanding parents’ perceptions o f feeding young children with
developmental and eating problems. Section four discusses the limitations o f this study.
After acknowledging these limitations, implications o f this study for further research are
discussed in the fifth section.
Support for a greater emphasis on parents* feeding perceptions
The strongest factor in this study suggesting the need for a greater emphasis by the
Birth-to-Three programs on the feeding perceptions o f parents with children who have
developmental and eating problems is the large number o f parents with extremely high
parenting stress scores. The parents’ mean score o f 89 on the Total Stress score o f the
PSI/SF is important to consider. Parents with a total stress score o f over 91 (at or above
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
90
the 90th percentile) are considered to be experiencing clinically relevant levels o f stress
requiring intervention (Abidin, 1995a).
Specific subdomain stress scores o f parents in this study were also found to indicate
clinically high levels of stress, with several parents scoring at or above the 95th percentile
on subdomain scores which strongly suggest the need for intervention (Abidin, 1995a).
Over one quarter of the parents scored at or above the 95°* percentile on the Parental
Distress subdomain, and approximately one fifth o f the parents scored at or above the 95th
percentile on the Parent-Child Dysfunctional Interaction and Difficult Child subdomains.
The results of this study are consistent with previous studies indicating that parents of
children with developmental and feeding difficulties have significantly higher levels of
parenting stress than parents of typical children with no feeding problems (Goldberg et aL,
1989; Humphry & Rourk, 1991; Secrist-Mertz et aL, 1997; Welch, 1990). However, the
mean percentile scores of parents in this study are even higher than the stress percentiles
reported in the literature. When considering the high parenting stress scores of parents
who have children with developmental and feeding problems, it is unclear whether the
greater stress o f these parents is related to their child's developmental problems only, or to
the feet that their child also has a feeding problem.
In considering the stress o f parents who have children with developmental problems,
the literature often does not make a clear distinction between children with and without
feeding problems (Goldberg et aL, 1989). Adams, Gordon, and Spangler (1999) studied
13 parents o f developmentaily disabled children with and with out feeding problems. They
found no significant differences in parenting stress. However, in their study approximately
half o f the children were between 5 and 17 years old. The older ages o f half o f these
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
91
children compared to the ages o f children in this study may have contributed to the lack of
differences found between parents of children with and without feeding problems. The
reports by parents in this dissertation that feeding was then least favorite child care task
suggests that the feeding component may be a major contributor to stress in parents o f
young children with developmental and eating problems.
This perception of half the parents in the study that feeding was then feast favorite
child-care task further suggests that parents may need greater support with feeding from
the Birth-to-Three programs. Although parents in this study were particularly likely to
perceive feeding as unfavorable because their children had identified feeding problems, the
children also had developmental problems that are associated with increased demands in
many other child care tasks. The unfavorable ratings of feeding compared with other child
care tasks suggests that feeding difficulties may be perceived as particularly problematic by
parents o f young children with developmental problems.
This finding of a strong dislike for feeding is consistent with the results o f two other
studies. Pridham et al. (1989) and Reilly and Skuse (1992) both reported that feeding was
described as unpleasant by one-third and two-thirds of the parents, respectively. The
findings o f these studies suggest that parent’s o f young children with developmental and
feeding problems have a strong dislike for feeding as a child-care task.
Further support of the need to focus on parents’ feeding perceptions was suggested by
the significant negative correlation found in this study between parenting stress and ratings
o f overall feeding satisfaction. A significant negative correlation was found between Total
Stress on the PShSF and overall satisfaction with the experience o f feeding and the
negative correlation between Total Stress and overall satisfaction with the amount o f
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
92
support received with feeding approached significance (p = .075). This relationship
between low overall feeding satisfaction and high parenting stress is consistent with the
literature regarding young children with feeding problems (Archer, Rosenbaum, &
Streiner, 1990; Douglas & Bryon, 1996; Humphry & Rourk, 1991; Satter, 1992).
It must be noted that due to the lack of established reliability and validity of the
Feeding Questionnaire, caution must be used in considering parents’ reports in this study
regarding both the unfavorability o f feeding and the relationship between feeding
satisfaction and parenting stress. This caution applies to all o f the results based on the
Feeding Questionnaire, and consequently all the relationships between items from the
Feeding Questionnaire and parenting stress. The lack o f reliability and validity of the
Feeding Questionnaire will be discussed further m the methodological issues section of this
chapter.
However, despite this caution related to the lack of reliability and validity of the
Feeding Questionnaire, the findings in this study and the literature suggest that a greater
emphasis on parents' feeding perceptions is needed in the Birth-to-Three programs.
Despite the salience o f feeding problems m the lives o f families that include young children
with developmental and eating problems, feeding intervention is a related service in Birth-
to-Three programs that does not independently qualify children with developmental and
eating difficulties for intervention services. The literature indicates that while children’s
daily eating and mealtime problems can be very stressful for families, these problems often
are not addressed because they are functional problems and have no single profession
responsible for intervention efforts (Archer, Rosenbaum, & Streiner, 1990). Professionals
in the Birth-to-Three programs have identified that they need a better understanding o f
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
93
feeding and nutrition problems. For example, in a survey o f 34 Connecticut Birth-to-
Three programs, 24 o f the programs reported they could use additional information or
training regarding feeding and nutrition services (Connecticut Birth to Three Nutrition
Task Force, 2000).
In conclusion, although it is difficult to determine the specific aspects o f having a
young child with developmental and eating problems that contribute to high parenting
stress, this study along with the existing literature supports the relationship between
having a young child with developmental and eating problems and high levels of parenting
stress. Given the established relationship between high parenting stress on the PSI/SF and
negative developmental outcomes in young children (Co wen, 1998; Deater-Deckard,
1996), it is important to address the negative feeding perceptions o f parents who have
young children with developmental and eating problems in an effort to reduce parenting
stress. This paper not only suggests that a greater emphasis on parents’ feeding
perceptions is needed by Birth-to-Three programs, but also provides a description of
parents’ feeding perceptions that therapists need to consider when working with parents o f
young children with developmental and feeding problems.
Descriptions of parents* feeding perceptions
A unique aspect o f this study was its attention to parents’ perceptions o f the positive
aspects o f feeding their child. As mentioned in the literature review, little information was
found in the literature regarding parents’ perceptions o f rewarding experiences in feeding
their young children with developmental and feeding problems. Early intervention
professionals tend to focus on the problematic aspects o f feeding a child with
developmental and eating problems, rather than understanding the positive perceptions
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
94
these feeding interactions can have on family members (Zeitlin & Williamson, 1994). As a
result o f the lack of research information, most o f the positive feeding behaviors
mentioned in the scale questions o f the Feeding Questionnaire did not match the rewarding
feeding behaviors described by parents m response to the open questions. However, a
significant negative correlation was found between the frequency o f the positive scale item
“child sits long enough to complete the meal”, and parenting stress on the Difficult Child
subdomain ( j j = .0001).
The strength of this correlation suggests that professionals should consider asking
parents o f young children with developmental and eating problems if their child sitting
long enough to complete meals is a rewarding feeding behavior that they feel needs to be
addressed with then: child. Understanding parent’s perceptions o f positive feeding
behaviors may be relevant for helping them to reduce their levels o f parenting stress. It
appears that the area o f rewarding feeding behaviors is o f crucial importance and needs to
be researched further.
Consistent with an exchange theory perspective, in addition to assessing parents’
rewarding feeding experiences, consideration was given to parents’ perceptions o f the
costs o f feeding. The most frequently mentioned feeding difficulties and frustrations
described by parents in this study were related to their child’s resisting/refusing food and
concerns that their child was not getting adequate nutrition. These concerns were
described most frequently in response to both the open-ended and scale scored questions
related to feeding problems. The great concern described by parents in this study
regarding their child resisting food and not getting adequate nutrition is completely
consistent with the literature (Clark et al., 1998; Reilly & Skuse, 1992).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
95
Inchided in the literature are findings that the greatest feeding problem and frustration
described by parents who have toddlers and preschoolers with developmental and eating
problems is that their young child is resisting/refusing food, and not getting adequate
nutrition (Pridham et al., 1989; Secrist-Mertz et aL, 1997). The most frequent feeding
problems reported in this study are similar to those previously mentioned for the Birth-to-
Three population with developmental disabilities (Clark et al., 1998).
The literature suggests that the problems o f resisting food and not eating enough are
related to the early negative feeding experiences o f children with developmental and eating
problems (e.g. choking, reflux, and/or tube feeding) that interfere with the development of
a positive association between hunger and food (Douglas & Byron, 1996; Glass & Lucas.
1990). It has been proposed that there may be a critical or sensitive period for learning to
eat during the first several months of life, and if tube feeding or physical problems interfere
with eating or drinking by mouth during this period the child wQl resist eating (Bazyk,
1990). The literature describes a relationship between parental perceptions that their
preschooler is resisting/refusing food, and negative feeding behaviors demonstrated by the
child and parent (Blissett, Harris, & Cunningham, 1999; Satter, 1990).
As might be expected from the relationship between food refusal and behavioral
feeding problems described in the literature, the third most commonly mentioned area of
feeding problems described by parents in this study was their child being unhappy and/or
behaving negatively (e.g., spitting out food) while eating. Conversely, the parents
described their child accepting, enjoying, and/or taking new food by mouth as the most
rewarding aspect o f feeding. It appears that the problems o f food refusal and negative
feeding behaviors may be interrelated, with the young child’s food refusal resulting in
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
96
parental behaviors that contribute to the child’s negative eating behaviors and food refusal
problems. For example, extreme efforts by parents to get toddlers/preschooler to eat (e.g.,
coaxing, force feeding) appear to increase the child’s resistance to eating, because feeding
becomes a power struggle in which the young child tries to assert his or her developmental
separation/individuation (Delaney, 1998). It is important for professionals to understand
parent’s experiences related to food refusal, and to support them in consistently offering
varied foods but not forcing then: child to eat (Satter, 1990).
The next most frequently mentioned feeding difficulty described by parents in this study
was their child’s oral-motor problems. These findings are consistent with the literature
indicating that parents of young children who have feeding and developmental problems
frequently describe their child as having oral-motor problems, including gagging (Clark et
aL, 1998) and difficulty chewing and/or swallowing (Dahl et aL, 1996; Reilly & Skuse,
1992). The literature further indicates that in comparison to parents of typically
developing children, a significantly greater number of parents with young children who
have developmental and feeding problems describe their toddler/preschooler as having
problems with persistent vomiting (Singer et aL, 1990), coughing, and choking (Pridham
et aL, 1989).
Another feeding cost described by parents in this study was the time required for
feeding their child. Results o f this study suggested that a distinction needs to be made
between considering the total time required for feeding, and the total time required for
feeding by the primary feeder. Contrary to previous studies indicating a positive
correlation between total daily time spent m oral feeding and parental stress e.g. p < .10
(Secrist-Mertz et aL, 1997), no significant relationship was found in this study between the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
97
total time required for feeding (by all adults who fed the child) and parenting stress. This
discrepancy in findings may have been due to the lower probability level, g < .05, used in
this study and/or the specific distinction made in this study by including all feeders in
considering the total time required daily for feeding.
However, a significant positive correlation was found in this study between the average
number of hours spent daily on feeding by the primary feeder and parenting stress on the
Parent-Child Dysfunctional Interaction subdomain of the PSI/SF. No significant
relationship was found between the number o f hours worked by the primary feeder and
parenting stress. These findings suggest that it is important for feeding intervention to
involve other family members and care providers besides the primary feeder, and for the
therapist to encourage others besides the primary feeder to participate in feeding and clean
up whenever possible.
Parents' described the need for feeding assistance that included specific technical
skills and support services. Most of the parents reported needing both help with specific
feeding strategies and social support. Four-fifth of the parents in this study stated they
needed help with feeding strategies, such as oral motor techniques, positioning for feeding,
and diet and nutrition advice. One-fifth o f the parents described needing social support,
including assistance with parent-child feeding interactions, stress management, identifying
community resources, and accessing insurance. Only one-twentieth of the parents
described needing no assistance. Parents’ comments indicated a need for a
transdisciplinary and family-centered team approach to feeding that provides specific
feeding strategies and social support. While this wholistic family-centered approach to
feeding is consistent with the stated mission o f the Birth-to-Three programs (Connecticut
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
98
Birth to Three Nutrition Task Force, 2000), parents spontaneously reported the need for a
more who fistic family-centered approach to feeding by Birth-to-Three providers that
includes specific feeding strategies and/or social support.
Consistent with the literature, parents in this study reported that their major feeding
difficulties included food refusal, negative meal time behaviors related to food refusal, oral
motor problems (Clark et aL, 1998) and difficulty chewing and/or swallowing (Dahl et a l,
1996; Reilly & Skuse, 1992). These areas o f concern appear to be related to both parent-
child interactions and biological characteristics of the child which are influenced by his/her
diagnosis. The multifaceted nature o f these problems appears to support the use o f the
family systems and social exchange theories in considering parents’ feeding perceptions
regarding their young child with developmental and eating problems.
Family Systems Theory as a theoretical foundation for understanding parents’feeding perceptions
This dissertation appears to support the use of family systems theory as a theoretical
foundation for understanding parents’ feeding perceptions. Mealtimes typically address
many family functions simultaneously, serving as a maintenance task through the
nourishment they provide, while also contributing through the interpersonal interactions
they provide, to managing the family’s emotional climate, identity tasks, and boundary
tasks (Anderson & Sabatelfi, 1995; Zeitlin & Williamson, 1994). When a child has
developmental and eating problems, the amount o f time needed for one or both parents to
focus on feeding as a maintenance task can interfere with the family’s ability to carry out
their other tasks (Zeitlin & Wfitfemson, 1994).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
99
Family systems theory offers a possible explanation for the fact that although only a
few o f the specific feeding behaviors were found to significantly correlate with parenting
stress (5 out o f 56), a relatively high proportion of overall feeding satisfaction measures
were significantly correlated (1 out of 4 showing a significant negative correlation with
parenting stress and a second approaching a significant negative correlation).
The relative lack of association between specific child feeding behaviors and parenting
stress is consistent with the family systems theory emphasis on the cumulative influence of
stressors and the adjustments made in the family system to respond to stress. Rather than
a single feeding behavior independently resulting in high parenting stress, stressors on the
family system are cumulative and would appear to put noticeable stress on the family
system only after they collectively reach a critical threshold (Anderson & SabateDL 1995).
A second finding in this study that can be explained by family systems theory is the
diverse scores found in parents' ratings o f their overall satisfaction with feeding. Family
systems theory proposes that while all families have to execute the same basic maintenance
tasks, such as feeding young children, each family is unique in the specific policies and
procedures it uses to carry out these tasks (Anderson & Sabatelli, 1995; Zeitlin &
Williamson. 1994). The implication of this variation between families is that while the
theoretical constructs o f the family systems theory can provide a framework for
understanding the feeding perceptions o f parents who have young children with
developmental and eating problems, the emphasis in the theory that these principles must
be applied to families on an individual bases helps to explain the variation found between
families in this study.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
100
The proposition of family systems theory that the family must be considered as
interacting with other systems also helps to explain the results o f this study. The three
most frequently mentioned responses regarding parents’ greatest feeding frustrations and
needs included issues related to different but related systems. Parents' responses included
problems associated with family system interactions (child’s negative feeding behaviors),
the subsystem o f the individual toddler/preschooler’s biological problems (oral-motor
problems including chewing and swallowing), and the suprasystem o f societal service
delivery (including such things as the availability o f feeding intervention services and
financial assistance for tube feeding formulas). Eighty percent o f parents in this study
described needing help with specific feeding techniques, information, and advice, and 20%
reported needing social support including counseling and assistance with accessing
insurance and support services.
As described in the literature review, these findings are consistent with the research,
which strongly suggests that parenting stress is affected by the impact of family dynamics
such as spousal support (Anderson & Sabatelli, 1995; Beckman. 1991; Warfield, Krauss.
Hauser-Cram, Upshur, & SbonkofE, 1999), the subsystem of the individual child’s
biological factors related to their developmental and feeding problems (Humphry &
Rourk, 1991; Innocenti et aL, 1992; Secrist-Mertz, Brotherson, Oakland, & Litchfield,
1997; Welch, 1996). and the suprasystem societal impact of the service delivery system
affecting physician behaviors (Larson, 1998).
In order to account for the multiple influences affecting parenting stress when children
have developmental and eating problems, the family system should be viewed in relation to
its interactions with the individual child’s biological subsystem and the societal
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
101
suprasystem affecting service delivery and parent-professional interactions (Sloman &
Konstantareas, 1990).
Viewed in this way as part o f the General Systems Theory (GST) from which it was
derived, family systems theory emphasizes the importance o f considering the multiple
factors influencing families who have children with developmental and feeding problems
(Whitchurch & Constantine, 1993). Sloman and Konstantareas (1990) suggest that
evaluation and treatment o f children with developmental problems should consider not
only interactions within the family system but also include biological and cognitive
perspectives on the subsystem o f the child with developmental problems, and the
suprasystem o f cultural influences on the family. This consideration of the family system
affecting and affected by other systems acknowledges that control over family system
behavior does not reside in any individual family member, but proposes that the impact of
a single member (such as a young child with developmental and eating problems) might
have a proportionally high degree o f impact on the family system (Whitchurch &
Constantine, 1993).
Social Exchange and Social Comparison Theories as a foundation for understanding parents* feeding perceptions
In addition to family systems theory, the Feeding Questionnaire follows the principles
o f Social Exchange theory in its consideration o f the various factors effecting parents’
perceptions o f their feeding rewards, costs, and overall satisfaction with feeding. This
focus on parents’ perceptions rather than feeding observations is consistent with the
Exchange Theory concept that individuals determine their overall satisfaction with
interpersonal relationships by assessing how their experiences compare to their
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
102
expectations (Waldron-Hennessey & Sabatelli, 1997). Along with exchange theory, the
concepts o f social comparison theory also help to explain the results o f this study.
One finding from this study that can be explained through an exchange and social
comparison theory perspective is that parents’ perceptions o f overall feeding satisfaction
differed from the assessment o f feeding difficulties as reported in the medical literature.
Parents of children with PDD/Autism reported significantly lower ratings o f overall
satisfaction with their feeding experience than parents of children with Cerebral Palsy. This
description by parents o f children with PDD/Autism o f overall satisfaction with their
feeding experience appears to conflict with the medical literature which indicates that
children with Cerebral Palsy often have complex eating problems that significantly
interfere with feeding, while children with PDD/Autism have only mOd feeding problems
such as picky eating (Burklow, Phelps, Schultz. McConnell & Rudolph, 1998;
Connecticut Birth to Three Nutrition Task Force, 2000; Quinn. 1995; Reilly & Skuse,
1992).
This problem o f differing perceptions between parents and professionals was
illustrated by one mother in this study who reported that she had fired her child’s
pediatrician because he told her that children with Autism do not have feeding problems.
She stated that because she knew of four other autistic children besides her son who had
feeding problems, including refusing to eat and throwing food, it was clear this physician
didn’t know what he was doing. It appears that while the views ofboth the mother and
pediatrician were consistent with the literature, their perceptions and definitions o f
problematic feeding differed.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
103
A common assumption among professionals is the belief that the severity o f a child’s
physical pathology is positively related to the degree o f family stress. However, in reality
research indicates that milder forms o f child dysfunction often distress families most. The
concept o f the comparison level suggests that it is primarily parents’ perceptions o f
problems that affect their unhappiness and need for assistance (Sloman & Konstantareas,
1990). The more normal appearance and lack of nutritional deficiencies o f children with
PDD/Autism and feeding problems may lead parents and/or professionals to assume that
the child’s feeding problems are caused by the child’s laziness or dislike o f the parent.
These assumptions, in turn, may increase parents’ dissatisfaction with the feeding
experience (Sloman & Konstantareas, 1990).
The concept o f the Comparison Level, which is central to Social Exchange theory, can
help to explain this discrepancy. Social exchange theory describes an individual’s
satisfaction with an aspect ofhis or her life as being guided by the Comparison Level
(CL), the standard people use to assess a situation or relationship’s costs and rewards.
The CL is set in terms of ones’ expectations o f what is realistically obtainable as
determined through societal norms and past experiences (Waldron-Hennessey & SabatelK,
1997).
This relationship between parents’ expectations and experiences appeared to emerge as
a central theme influencing parents’ descriptions o f their feeding perceptions. Several
parents expressed that while feeding their child was difficult, the struggle with feeding was
something they accepted given their child’s developmental problems. However, other
parents expressed concerns that their child was not progressing in feeding in an age
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
104
appropriate way. It may be that effective coping by parents who have children with
developmental and feeding problems involves a process o f lowering their CL expectations
horn the normative standard used for typically developing children to expectations that are
consistent with having a child with developmental and eating problems. This may be
easier to do if the child is acknowledged by professionals and society in general as being
different from the norm, such as children with Cerebral Palsy, than when children look
more '"normal”, such as children with PDD/Autism.
Social exchange theory offers an explanation for this focus by parents’ on the
relationship between feeding expectations and experiences, describing overall feeding
satisfaction as resulting from the relationship between perceived feeding costs and
rewards. Perceived feeding costs and rewards are judged based on the degree to which an
individual’s experiences matches his or her expectations. Based on Social Exchange
theory measures o f overall satisfaction on the Feeding Questionnaire would therefore be
expected to be high if parents’ perceived feeding experiences exceeded their expectations,
and low if then perceived experiences fell below expectations (Sabatelli & Shehan. 1993;
Waldron-Hennessey & Sabatelli, 1997).
Exchange theory proposes that people set their comparison level standard of
expectations based on their individual perceptions o f societal norms (Sabatelli & Shehan,
1993; Waldron-Hennessey & Sabatelli, 1997). Consistent with this exchange theory
explanation, parents’ descriptions o f their most rewarding feeding experiences were
consistent with the expectations held in our society for the feeding behaviors expected by
toddlers and preschoolers. Nearly half the parents reported that they felt rewarded when
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
105
their child accepts, enjoys, and/or takes new food, which are expected behaviors for
typically developing toddlers and preschoolers.
Parents’ in this study also described experiences that fell below societal expectations
as their greatest feeding problems. The greatest problems with feeding described by the
parents were their child’s persistent food refusal, related negative behaviors, and
difficulties with age expected oral-motor eating skills. These problematic feeding
experiences appeared to contrast greatly with the feeding expectations society holds for
typical toddlers and preschoolers. Several parents also specifically referred to societal
expectations when describing their greatest feeding concerns, relating their concern that
their child’s food refusal or inability to self-feed should have gone away by now and that
they feared their child would always have these difficulties.
Given the theme that emerged from this study regarding the importance o f parents'
expectations in influencing their perceptions o f feeding experiences. Social Comparison
theory appears particularly helpful for understanding parents’ feeding perceptions. The
social comparison literature describes how individuals use cognitive processes to mediate
their responses to stress (Croyle, 1992) and cope with stressful events (Taylor, Buunk, &
AspinwalL 1990). Parents’ perceptions o f their child’s feeding behavior in this study
appeared to be affected by how their feeding experiences related to their feeding
expectations. The parents’ feeding expectations appeared to be influenced by comparisons
o f their child’s feeding behavior with the feeding behavior o f other typically or atypicaOy
developing children, or with their child’s own past feeding behaviors as reflected in the
progress their child made in feeding.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
106
Social Comparison theory describes specific types o f comparisons that parent’s may
use in dealing with stressful situations such as their perceptions o f feeding a child with
developmental and eating problems. Awareness o f the comparison level standard held by
parents can be helpful for therapists who are working with families to improve their child’s
feeding skills. Two major cognitive processes used in dealing with stress are described by
Social Comparison theory, downward social comparisons (comparing ones self with
others who are less fortunate or less capable) and upward social comparisons (comparing
ones self with others who are more capable or better off). Downward and upward social
comparisons may be used as attempts to cognitively mediate stress and manage ones
emotions. However, upward comparisons do not necessarily lead to negative affect, and
downward comparisons to positive affect (Hemphill & Lehman, 1991).
The critical factor affecting the impact o f upward and downward comparisons on
emotional well-being appears to be related not to which type o f comparison is made but
instead to the individual’s perception of what the comparison means (Hemphill & Lehman,
1991). Downward social comparisons can affect an individual positively if they focus on
their comparative superiority or good fortune, or negatively if they perceive it as an
indication that their own situation can get worse. Likewise upward social comparisons
can affect an individual positively if they focus on the possibility that they can become
better off than they are currently, or negatively if they focus on their current relative
inadequacy and misfortune relative to others (Taylor, Buunk, & AspinwaU, 1990).
Coping and the impact o f feeding intervention services
In addition to their perceptions of feeding costs and rewards, parents were asked to
describe their perceptions o f the Birth-to-Three feeding intervention provided for their
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
107
family. Slightly less than half the parents described feeding intervention in terms of its
having a positive impact with no mention o f a negative impact. Parents reported two
ways that therapists had a positive impact on feeding.
Some parents described interaction strategies developed jointly by the therapist and
parent that resulted in less food refusal and negative behaviors by their child. Other
parents reported that although there was no improvement in then: child’s food refusal and
negative feeding behaviors, they were supported by the therapist’s participation in the
most difficult aspects of feeding. By watching the therapist experience their child’s
problematic eating behaviors, such as spitting food and screaming, parents felt they were
helped to realize that their child’s eating problems were not their fault.
Social comparison theory would explain the parents’ perceptions of feeding
intervention as having a positive impact if it improved their child’s feeding behaviors
because their child’s improved feeding behavior compared more favorably to other
children and/or their own child’s past feeding behaviors. The therapist’s participation and
difficulties in feeding would be explained as beneficial because it showed parents’ that
their feeding ability compared favorably with the feeding abilities of a professional feeding
expert.
While slightly less than half the parents described feeding intervention as having a
positive impact only, approximately one quarter described intervention as having both
positive and negative impacts, and one quarter described intervention as having no impact
or a negative impact only (11.5% describing each of these categories). Parents’ comments
regarding the negative impacts o f feeding intervention related to the intervention not
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
108
addressing parents’ goals, not fitting into family routines, or causing the family to feel
inadequate for not doing enough to help improve their child’s feeding.
For example, one parent conveyed that her child’s therapist provided a positive impact
by teaching her how to introduce cup drinking to her child, but a negative impact because
she told the mother she was not spending enough time working on cup drinking. The
mother reported that having a new baby had made her too tired to work as long as she
should on cup drinking with her disabled child, and she would cry every night because she
knew she was letting her son down. The literature describes such conflicts between
parents and professionals regarding the level o f involvement parents should have, and
stresses the importance o f therapists respecting parent’s abilities and preferences regarding
the amount of involvement they have in carrying out their child’s therapy program (Bazyk.
1989).
Parents who described feeding intervention as having a positive impact only or both
positive and negative impacts had significantly lower levels o f parenting stress than parents
who described feeding treatment as having no impact or a negative impact only. While the
lack o f reliability and validity of the Feeding Questionnaire require caution in considering
this relationship between perceived positive outcomes from feeding treatment and lower
parenting stress, it is especially interesting given the established relationship in the research
between decreased parenting stress and positive child developmental outcomes (Cowen,
1998; Deater-Deckard, 1996). The relationship between a perceived positive impact from
feeding intervention and decreased parenting stress may suggest that feeding intervention
which is perceived by parents as having a more positive impact is more effective in
reducing parenting stress.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
109
Another finding related to feeding intervention that underscores the need for Birth-to-
Three service providers to gain a greater understanding o f parents’ feeding perceptions
was the frequent lack o f agreement between parents’ descriptions o f their feeding goals
and the feeding goals listed in their child’s Birth-to-Three record. Feeding goals in the
Birth-to-Three record are supposed to reflect the goals that are most important to the
parents (Connecticut Birth to Three Nutrition Task Force, 2000). Yet when 30 feeding
goals described by parents from the Feeding Questionnaire were compared with the
combined feeding goals in their child’s Birth-to-Three record, only one third matched
completely. Approximately half o f the goals described by the parents partially matched the
goals in their child’s record, and one sixth did not match at all. These results suggest that
either the child’s therapist did not clearly understand the parents’ goals when developing
the feeding goals in the child’s Birth-to-Three record, or the parents’ goals had changed
but the goals in them child’s record had not been revised.
Implications of this study for family-centered feeding intervention
An initial implication of this study for clinical practice is that Birth-to-Three programs
need to focus more on the feeding perceptions o f parents who have young children with
developmental and eating problems. The findings o f this study that developmental and
feeding problems are problematic for parents, that half the parents experience clinically
significant levels o f parenting stress, and that many parents describe feeding as their least
favorite child care task, support the need for early intervention providers to evaluate and,
if necessary, address parents’ feeding perceptions. The literature supports the findings of
this study suggesting that it is beneficial for early intervention providers to evaluate
parents’ perceptions o f feeding and feeding intervention (Zeitlin & Williamson, 1994).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
110
Following assessment o f parents’ feeding perceptions, feeding intervention services should
be provided to parents o f young children with developmental and eating problems who
want and feel they need feeding intervention (Affleck, Tennen, & Rowe, 1991).
Feeding interventions for young children with developmental and eating problems are
most affective when professionals understand the unique sources o f stress experienced by
each family (Handleman, 1995), and use this understanding to provide feeding intervention
that assists the family in coping effectively with these stresses (Humphry, 1989). An
understanding o f parents’ perceptions of their young child’s feeding behaviors provides a
foundation for affective family-centered feeding intervention by clarifying parents’ feeding
concerns, pleasures, satisfaction, and goals (Bemheimer & Keogh, 1995; Crowley, 1995;
Deal et al.. 1994).
This need for professionals to understand and address parents' feeding perceptions was
illustrated by the significantly lower ratings of overall feeding satisfaction by parents of
children with PDD/Autism compared to parents o f children with Cerebral Palsy. This is in
contrast to the belief of professionals that Cerebral Palsy causes more problematic feeding
experiences for parents. Because there may be differences between the perceptions of
feeding problems by parents and professionals, it is important that feeding evaluations
include measures o f parent perceptions as well as the observations of professionals.
A second issue that should be addressed by clinicians is the high degree of food
resistance and negative feeding behaviors described by parents in this study and confirmed
by the literature regarding parents o f young children who have developmental and eating
problems. Therapists need to provide parents with information and modeling that assists
them in understanding that their child’s resistance to eating and associated negative
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
I l l
feeding behaviors are based on the child’s physical problems and/or medical history and
are not a negative expression by the child towards the parent
In addition to understanding the problematic aspects o f feeding, as is most commonly
done in feeding assessments, the significant negative relationship found between parenting
stress and the positive behavior o f sitting long enough to complete the meal suggests that
therapists should also consider parents’ positive feeding perceptions. Therapists can then
try to promote the feeding behaviors parents fold most rewarding, and point them out to
parents during feeding.
Evaluations o f parents’ perceptions o f feeding should carefully monitor both parents’
overall feeding satisfaction and parenting stress. The results o f this study indicate that it is
important for early intervention providers to periodically assess and be sensitive to
parents’ overall satisfaction with feeding, as well as to monitor parenting stress. By
staying aware of the parents’ current overall feeding perceptions and levels o f parenting
stress, therapists will have helpful information regarding when it is most appropriate to
discuss introducing additional feeding demands on the parents, child, and family such as
introducing foods of greater consistency.
An awareness of parents’ levels o f stress may also help therapists to better recognize
and address parents’ needs for counseling services. During the interviews a number of
parents spontaneously expressed that with all o f their difficulties related to having a child
with developmental and eating problems professional counseling support is needed. The
parents also suggested that these counseling services should be actively offered to parents
by therapists working in the Birth-to-Three programs.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
112
An implication o f parents’ reports regarding the negative impacts o f feeding
intervention is that therapists should make every effort possible to integrate feeding
interventions into the family routine, address the parents’ feeding concerns, and not imply
that parents are not doing enough to improve their child’s feeding abilities. Hand (1988)
states that identifying families needs, resources, and desired degree of involvement in early
intervention services is the foundation for appropriate collaboration between parents and
professionals in the Birth-to-Three programs. One theme that emerged from this study
was that parents should be approached as colleagues with professionals in the feeding
intervention process.
Given the need expressed in the literature for developing family-centered evaluation
and intervention services that are grounded in a theoretical understanding of parenting and
the family (Humphry, 1989; Innocenti, HoDmger, Escobar, & White. 1993), the family
systems, social exchange, and social comparison theories appear promising for guiding
feeding evaluation and intervention services. These three theories were helpful in
explaining many aspects o f parents’ feeding perceptions found in this study, including the
multiple perspectives o f family dynamics, biological factors related to the child with
developmental and eating problems, and societal factors affecting the service delivery
system. Greater efforts are needed to educate early intervention professionals on these
and other current theories regarding feeding, nutrition, parenting, family studies, and
cultural diversity (Connecticut Birth to Three Nutrition Task Force. 2000). These areas of
study should also be more extensively covered in the pre-professional, professional, and
graduate education levels in the allied health and medical fields (Humphry, 1989).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
113
The family systems, social exchange, and social comparison theories provide a
framework for considering the feeding perceptions o f parents who have young children
with developmental and eating problems. Family systems theory directs therapists to
consider parents’ perceptions o f then child’s feeding within the context o f the family
system and the sub and suprasystems influencing the family system. Subsystem influences
would include the child’s biological factors related to his or her developmental and eating
problems, while suprasystem influences would relate to such influences as the service
delivery system. The social exchange and social comparison theories encourage therapists
to consider parents’ feeding expectations and experiences, and how the relationship
between parents’ feeding expectations and experiences affect their overall feeding
satisfaction and levels o f parenting stress. Finally, while the family systems, social
exchange, and social comparison theories offer principles for understanding and
addressing parents’ feeding perceptions, these theories maintain that the principles need to
be applied individually because each parent and family is unique.
As suggested by the high standard deviation of parents’ overall feeding satisfaction
ratings, professionals need to consider the perceptions and coping responses o f parents
with young children who have developmental and eating problems individually, rather than
over-generalizing based on the principles o f family theories (Affleck et al., 1991). The
implication o f the variation between parents’ overall feeding perceptions is that the
theoretical constructs o f the family systems, social exchange, and social comparison
theories must be applied individually to each parent and family to be effective.
In this study parents who were most dissatisfied with their overall feeding experience
had the highest levels o f parenting stress. Interpretation o f this finding based on social
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
114
exchange and social comparison theory suggests that therapists need to help parents to be
realistic concerning then expectations o f then child’s developmental and eating skills. It
could be assumed that by helping parents to match then expectations with then child’s
abilities, therapists can reduce parenting stress and improve overall feeding satisfaction.
However, caution must be used if giving parents a “realistic” negative appraisal o f their
young child because parents may perceive such appraisals as an underestimation o f their
child’s abilities by professionals (Larson, 1998). In addition, not enough is currently
known about the effects o f social comparisons on parental coping to justify active
manipulation of parents’ comparisons by professionals (Affleck et aL, 1991). Given the
current state o f knowledge, it appears most appropriate for professionals to provide
information about the child’s developmental and feeding problems based on an accurate
appraisal o f current research, while actively listening to and not challenging parents'
expressed perceptions o f their feeding experiences.
Professionals should not discourage parents from comparing a problem of their infant
with other infants who are doing better and worse, as such discouragement may be
problematic for parents (Affleck et aL, 1991). Parents’ in this study, consistent with the
literature, described their need for clear, accurate information regarding their child’s
developmental and feeding problems and the opportunity to openly express their emotions
regarding then: child’s problem.
Therapists should provide accurate information to parents regarding their child’s
developmental and eating problems, then listen to and not discount parents’ negative
perceptions o f their child. By providing clear accurate information and listening to
parents, therapists can help parents develop an accurate and realistic understanding o f
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
115
then: child’s needs and abilities and develop a long term acceptance o f their child’s unique
strengths and disabilities (Britner et a l, 2000; Zeitlin & Williamson, 1994). A
collaborative team effort between parents and professionals is needed to achieve optimal
feeding skills for young children with developmental and eating problems.
Methodological Issues
The goal o f this study was to gam an understanding of parents’ perceptions of feeding
that could be used to guide feeding intervention in the Birth-to-Three programs.
Consistent with this goal, the sample included parents of toddlers and preschoolers who
were current or former participants in the Birth-to-Three programs. This included
children with a variety of disabilities. It was recognized that by not limiting the population
in terms of diagnoses, it was likely that considerable variance would be introduced by the
inclusion of families whose children had varied developmental and feeding difficulties.
However, the advantage of this diversity in diagnoses and feeding problems was that it
provided the opportunity to determine the common feeding perceptions and treatment
implications that applied to the range of families receiving feeding intervention in the
Birth-to-Three programs.
Consistent with this variation in the sample, three of the four measures o f overall
feeding satisfaction (e.g., the experience o f feeding their child, the support received with
feeding, and their balance between feeding and other aspects o f their life) indicated that
there was wide variability in parents’ scores. The large standard deviations in the
responses to these scale questions reflect the individual differences between parent’s
overall perceptions o f feeding.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
116
Methodologically, this research had both strengths and weaknesses. The inclusion o f
rewarding feeding behaviors appeared to be a relatively unique and important factor for
understanding parents' feeding perceptions. However, primarily due to the lack o f
available research for developing positive feeding items, most o f the rewarding feeding
behaviors described by the parents in the open-ended questions were not included as scale
scored items in the Feeding Questionnaire. The most frequently mentioned rewarding
feeding behaviors from the open-ended questions should be considered for inclusion in
future scale scored items that address rewarding feeding behaviors.
Tt should also be noted that while the Feeding Questionnaire utilized social exchange
theory by including questions about both feeding rewards and costs, the questions did not
specifically ask parents to compare their feeding perceptions to what they expected. Also,
while social exchange theory has been used to describe the parenting relationship, it has
not previously been used to specifically consider overall feeding satisfaction, and this
narrower focus to one aspect o f parenting may be too limited for application o f social
exchange theory. It was felt that given the salience of feeding for parents o f young
children with developmental and feeding problems, such a use of social exchange theory
was consistent with the foundations of this theory.
All o f the findings regarding correlations between parental perceptions o f feeding and
feeding intervention as described by the Feeding Questionnaire must be interpreted with
caution because the Feeding Questionnaire was designed to collective descriptive
information, not as a psychometric measure o f parents7 perceptions o f feeding or feeding
intervention. Thus reliability and validity were not assessed. The items from the feeding
scale were based on a variety o f feeding measures and the author's clinical experience as
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
117
an occupational therapist working with young children who had developmental and
feeding problems and their families. Parents’ scores on the problem frequency items had a
coefficient alpha of .61, and scores on the problem intensity 1 items (frequency X
frustration).63, both in the moderate to high range o f score reliability within subsection
items (Gall et aL, 1996; SPSS Inc., 1999). The problem frustration and positive feeding
behavior frequency items each had a coefficient alpha of .47, in the moderate range (Gall,
Borg, & Gall, 1996; SPSS Inc., 1999). While the coefficient alpha reflected subsections
of the Feeding Questionnaire, it suggests items may have potential for development into a
reliable test.
However, while further studies may build on items in the Feeding Questionnaire to
develop a reliable and valid measure of parents’ feeding perceptions, this was not the goal
of the current study. The focus o f this study was the potential usefulness of the Feeding
Questionnaire as a clinical tool to guide parent-centered feeding intervention. Application
of information regarding parents’ perception of feeding and feeding intervention appears
to be where the greatest potential for the Feeding Questionnaire lies.
An important addition to increase the effectiveness of the Feeding Questionnaire as a
clinical tool to guide feeding intervention with parents of children who have
developmental and feeding problems would be to include two additional open-ended
questions at the beginning o f the Feeding Questionnaire interview. These questions,
described by Britner et aL (2000) in their study o f parents with young children who had
Cerebral Palsy, are 1) Tell me about who is in your family and 2) Tell me about your daily
routine (Britner et aL, 2000). Following these mitral questions, specific questions from the
feeding questionnaire which were not addressed could be related to the initial questions
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
118
and asked in an informal way. Two parents suggested open-ended questions o f this type
would have been helpful during this research, commenting that it was awkward to respond
to formal questions at the beginning of the interview. They also commented that the
ratings o f feeding frustration preceding a complete open-ended description o f feeding felt
awkward.
This study had a number o f limitations in terms of its generalizeability. Since it
involved only 31 subjects, and participants were a self-selected rather than a random
sample, the results may not be typical of families o f toddlers and preschoolers with
developmental and feeding problems. It must also be noted that most of the families were
participants in the Connecticut Birth-to-Three program. Their experiences may differ
from parents m Birth-to-Three programs in other states. The decision to exclude parents
who could not speak English also may have limited the generalizeability o f this study,
since non-English speaking parents are part o f the Birth-to-Three population.
A methodological limitation of this study is that scale score questions regarding
specific oral-motor and food refusal problems preceded all but one of the open-ended
questions regarding feeding problems, and may have prompted parents to describe feeding
problems mentioned in the scale questions during the open-ended questions. A second
methodological concern is that questions regarding perceptions of Birth-to-Three feeding
intervention were proposed to a sample including families who were both current and
former participants m the Birth-to-Three program. The differing perspectives o f reporting
present and past feeding perceptions may have led to significantly different perceptions
being included in this study from these two groups.
Implications for future research
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
119
It seems imperative to conduct further theoretically grounded research to determine
the best ways to involve parents in feeding intervention so they will perceive feeding
intervention as having a positive impact (Irmocenti et aL, 1993). This study suggests the
need for further research regarding parent’s perceptions o f feeding and feeding
intervention using a large, random sample o f parents who have young children with
developmental and feeding problems. Greater research especially is needed regarding the
rewarding aspects of feeding for parents o f toddlers and preschoolers with developmental
and eating problems. Parent’s descriptions o f rewarding feeding experiences from this
study may provide a first step in developing scale score questions regarding positive
feeding perceptions for future studies. Scale score questions regarding feeding rewards
may then be used to develop an assessment o f the relationship between feeding costs,
rewards, and overall feeding perceptions that evaluates the applicability o f the social
exchange theory for considering parent’s feeding perceptions.
Further research also is needed to assess the effects o f different types o f family-
centered feeding interventions on parents’ perceptions o f feeding and parenting stress.
This type o f research is needed to test theoretically based approaches for how to involve
parents most effectively in feeding intervention. If the goal o f family-centered feeding
intervention is to involve and support parents most effectively, then measures o f parents’
feeding perceptions and overall parenting stress should be included in feeding treatment
outcome measures.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
120
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
121
Abidin, R. (1995a). Parenting Stress Index Professional Manual Hrd ed.). Odessa, Florida: Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc.
Abidin, R. (1995b). Parenting Stress Index Short Form test sheet. Odessa, Florida: Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc.
Adams, R. A., Gordon, C., & Sprangler, A. A. (1999). Maternal stress in caring for children with feeding disabilities: Implications for health care providers. Journal o f the American Dietetic Association. 99, 962-966.
Affleck, G., & Tennen, H. (1991). Appraisal and coping predictors o f maother and child outcomes after newborn intensive care. Journal o f Clmiral Psychology. 1 0 .424-447.
Affleck, G., Tennen, H., & Rowe, J. n 991V Tnfents m Crisis: How parents cope with newborn intensive care and its aftermath. New York: S pringer-Verlag.
Anderson, S., & Sabatelli, R. (1995). Family Interaction. Needham Heights, MA: AHyn & Bacon.
Archer, L. A., Rosenbaum, P. L., & Sterner, D. L. (1991). The Children's Fating Behavior Inventory: Reliability and Validity Results. Journal o f Pediatric Psychiatry. 16. 629-642.
Azzi-Lessing, L. (1996). The development and evaluation o f a semi-structured interview format for needs assessment with at-risk families. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University o f Connecticut.
Barnard, K. (1994). NCAST Feeding Scale, Seattle, WA: University o f Washington.
Bazyk, S. (1989). Changes in attitudes and beliefs regarding parent participation and home programs: An update. American Journal o f Occupational Therapy. 43. 723-727.
Beckman, P. (1991). Comparison o f mothers' and fathers’ perceptions o f the effect o f young children with and without disabilities American Journal on Mental Retardation. 95, 585-595.
Bemheimer, L. P., & Keogh, B. K. (1995). Weaving interventions into the fabric o f everyday life: An approach to family assessment. TECSE. 15.415-433.
Britner, P. A., GDI, W. J., LaFIeur, S. J., Pianta, R. C., & Marvin, R. S. (2000). “Well at least it's not: Social comparisons, coping strategies, and parents' abilities to resolve then child's diagnosis o f Cerebral Palsy. Unpublished manuscript.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
122
Brotherson, M. J., Oakland, M. J., Secrist-Mertz, C., Litchfield, R., & Larson, K. (1995). Quality o f life issues for families who make the decision to use a feeding tube for then: child with disabilities. JASH. 2 0 .202-212.
Bryan, D., & Pressman, H. (1995). Comprehensive Team Evaluation. In S. R. Rosenthal, J. J. Sheppard, & M. Lotze (Eds.), Dvsphapia and the Child With Developmental Disabilities (pp. 15-29). San Diego, California: Singular Publishing Group.
Burklow, K. A., Phelps, A. N., Schultz, J. R-, McConnell, K., & Rudolph, C. (1998). Classifying complex pediatric feeding disorders. Journal nf Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition. 2 7 .143-147.
Case-Smith, J. (1998). Foundations and Principles. In J. Case-Smith (Ed.), Pediatric Occupation Therapy and Early Intervention, (pp. 3-25). Woburn, MA: Butterworth Heinemann.
Clark, M. P., Oakland, M. J., & Brotherson, M. J. (1998). Nutrition screening for children with special health care needs. Children's Health Care. 27 .231-245.
Connecticut Birth to Three Nutrition Task Force, (2000). Service Guideline 6: Nutrition intervention pindance for service providers and families. Connecticut: Author.
Connecticut Birth to Three System, (1999). Procedures Manual Connecticut: Author.
Cowen, P. (1998). Crisis child care: An intervention for at-risk families. Issues in Comprehensive Pediatric Nursing. 2 1 .147-158.
Crowley, S. (1995). Familv functioning in families nf children with disabilities: An intensive psychometric investigation o f five family measures. (Eric Document Reproduction Service No. ED 381-917)
Croyie, R. T. (1992). Appraisal o f health threats: Cognition, motivation, and social comparison. Cognitive Therapy and Research. 16 .165-182.
Dahl, M , Thommessen, M., Rasmussen, M., & Selberg, T. (1996). Feeding and nutritional characteristics in children with moderate or severe cerebral palsy. Acta Paediatr. 85. 697-701.
Deal, A., Dunst, C., & Trivette, C. (1994). A flexible and functional approach to developing individualized family support plans. In C. Dunst, C. Trivette, & A. Deal (EdsA. Supporting & Strengthening Families: Volume Ifpp.62-72\ Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.
Deater-Deckard, K., & Scarr, S. (1996). Parenting stress among duaLeamer mothers and fathers: Are there gender differences? Journal o f Familv Psychology. 10.45-59.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
123
Delaney, T. A. (1998). The picky eater. Nutrition Focus. T3 (6), 1-7.
DeMaso, D., Campis, L., Wypij, D., Bertram, S., Lipshitz, M., & Freed, M. (1990). The impact o f maternal perceptions and medical severity on the adjustment o f children with congenital heart disease. Journal o f Pediatric Psychology. 1 6 .137-149.
Douglas, J. E., & Bryon, M. (1996). Interview data on severe behavioural eating difficulties in young children. Archives of the Disabled Child. 75.304-308.
Dunst. C. J.. Trivette. C.. & Johnson. C. (1994). Parent-professional collaboration and partnerships. In C. Dunst, C. Trivette, & A. Deal (Eds.), Supporting & Strengthening Families? Volume 1 (pp.197-211). Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.
Entwisle, D., & Astone, N. (1994). Some practical guidelines for measuring youth's race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status. Child Development 65. 1521-1540.
Ernst, L., & Young, R. (1993). Common gastrointestinal problems in children with developmental disabilities. Nutrition Focus. 8 (4), 1-6.
Forsyth. B. W., Leventhai, J. M., & McCarthy, P. L. (1985). Mothers' perceptions o f problems o f feeding and crying behaviors. AJDC. 139.269-272.
Gall, M. D., Walter, R. B., & GaD, J. P. (Eds.). Education Research: An Introduction (6,h ed.). White Plains, NY: Longman Publishers.
Gisel, E. G. (1994). Oral-motor skills following sensorimotor intervention m the moderately eating-impaired child with cerebral palsy. Dvsphapia. 9, 180-192.
Glass, R., & Lucas, B. (1990). Making the transition from tube feeding to oral feeding. Nutrition Focus. 5 (6), 1-6.
Glass, R ., & Wolf L. (1998). Feeding and oral-motor skills. In J. Case-Smith (Ed.), Pediatric Occupation Therapy and Early Intervention, (pp. 127-165). Woburn, MA: Butterworth Heinemann.
Goldberg, S., Morris, P., Simrnonsjl. J., Fowler, R. S.. & Levison, H. (1989). Chrome illness in infancy and parenting stress: A comparison of three groups o f parents. Journal of Pediatric Psychology. 15.347-358.
Gray, S. (2000). Birth to Three Nutrition Training presentation and unpublished manuscript. New Haven, CT.
Handleman, J. (1995). Raising a child with Developmental Disability: Understanding the familv perspective. San Diego: Singular Publishing Group.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
124
ffanft, B. (1988). The changing environment o f early intervention services: Implications for practice. American Journal o f Occupational Therapy. 42.724-738.
Harris, L. (1989). The effectiveness o f a feeding support group as an adjunct to other therapies in an early intervention program. Zero to Three. April.
Harwood, R., Miller, J., & Irizarry, N. (1995). Culture and Attachment. New York: The Guilford Press.
Hemphill, K. J., & Lehman, D. R. (1991). Social comparisons and their affective consequences: The importance of comparison dimension and individual difference variables. Journal o f Social and Clinical Psychology. 10.372-394.
Humphry, R. (1991). Impact o f feeding problems on the parent-infant relationship.Infants and Young Children. 3 (31. 30-38.
Humphry, R. (1989). Early intervention and the influence o f the occupational therapist on the parent-child relationship. American Journal o f Occupational Therapy. 43 .738-742.
Humphry, R., & Rourk, M. H. (1991). When an infant has a feeding problem. Occupational Therapy Journal of Research. 11. 106-119.
Imms, C. (1998). Evaluating the emotional and practical impact on families when feeding children with congenital heart disease. Paper presented at the World Federation of Occupational Therapists Congress. Montreal, Canada.
Innocenti, M. S., Huh, K., & Boyce, G. C. (1992). Families o f children with disabilities: Normative data and other considerations on parenting stress. TECSE 12.403-427.
Innocenti, M. S., Ho Dinger, P. D., Escobar, C. M., & White, K. R. (1993). The cost- effectiveness o f adding one type of parent involvement to an early intervention study.Early Education and Development. 4 .306-326.
Kedesdy, J., & Budd, K. (1998). Childhood Feeding Disorders. Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing Co.
Klein, M., & Delaney, S. (19994). Down Syndrome: Growth and nutrition (pp. 395-400). Therapy Skill Builders.
Kolobe, T. (1992). Working with families o f children with disabilities. Pediatric Physical Therapy. 4 .57-61.
Krauss, M. W., Upshur, C., Shonkoff J., & Hauser-cram, P. (1993). The impact o f parent groups on mothers o f infants with disabilities. Journal ofEarfy Intervention. 17 fT>. 8- 20.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
125
Larson, E. (1998). Enhancing collaboration: Refraining mother's rifscnnrse. Paper presented at the World Federation o f Occupational Therapists Congress, Montreal, Canada.
Lachenmeyer, J. (1995). Behavior aspects of feeding disorders. In S. Rosenthal, J. Sheppard, & M. Lotze (Eds.), Dvsphapia and the Child with Developmental Disabilities. San Diego: Singular Publishing Group.
Lemer. R. (1986). Theories ofhuman development (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Levy, S. (1996). The developmental disabilities (pp. 3-11). In L. Kurtz, P. Dowrick, S. Lew. & M. Batshaw (Eds.l. Handbook of Developmental Disabilities. Gaithersburg, Maryland, Aspen Publishers.
Meyer, E., CoD, C., Lester, B., Boukydis, Z., McDonough, S., & Oh, W. (1994). Family- based intervention improves maternal psychological well-being and feeding interaction of preterm infants. Pediatrics. 93.241-246.
Munson, L. J. (1996). Parent-infant interaction during play and feeding for infants who are typically developing and for infonts who have a feeding problem and developmental delay. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Vanderbilt University.
Paradise, J., Feldman, H., Colbom, K., Campbell, T., DoDaghan, C., Rockette, H., Janosky, J., Kurs-Lasky, M., Bernard, B., & Smith, K. (1999). Parental stress and parentrated child behavior m relation to Otitis Media in the first three years o f life. Pediatrics. 104.1264-1273.
Pridham, K. F. (1995). Interview About Feeding. Unpublished manuscript.
Pridham, K. F., Brown, R., & Schroeder, M. (1998). The adaptiveness o f mothers working models o f caregiving through the first year: infont and mother contributors. Unpublished manuscript.
Prontnicki, J. (1995). Presentation: Symptomatology and etiology o f dysphagia. Et S. Rosenthal, J. Sheppard, & M. Lotze (Eds.), Dysphagia and the Child With Developmental Disabilities (pp. 1-29). San Diego, California: Singular Publishing Group.
Quinn, H., & Levine, K. (1995). Nutrition concerns for children with Pervasive Developmental Disorder/Autism. Nutrition Focus for children with special health care needs. 10 (51.1-7.
Raddish, M., Forsythe, H., & Kleinert, H. (1995). Nutritional intake in children with disabilities compared to typical children. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 388452)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
126
Ramsay, M., Gisel, E., & Boutry, M. (1993). Non-orgamc M ure to thrive: Growth M ure secondary to feeding-skifls disorder. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology. 35.285-297.
Reilly, S., Skuse, D., Mathisen, B., & Wolke, D. (1995). The objective rating o f oral- motor functions during feeding. Dvsphnpia 10 177-191.
Redly, S., & Skuse, D. (1992). Characteristics and management o f feeding problems o f young children with cerebral palsy. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology. 34. 379-388.
SabateQi, R. M., & Shehan, C. L. (1994). Exchange and resource theories. In Boss, P.G., Doherty, W .., LaRossa, R., Schumm, W. R_, & Steinmetz, S. K. (Eds.) , Sourcebook o f family theories and methods: A contextual approach fpp 385-411). New York: Plenum Press.
Samuelson, J. J., Foltz, J., & FoxalL, M. J. (1992). Stress and coping in families of children with Myelomeningocele. Archives o f Psychiatric Nursing. 6 .287-295.
Satter, E. (1992). The feeding relationship. Zero to Three. 12 (5), 1-9.
Satter, E. (1990). The feeding relationship: Problems and interventions. The Journal of Pediatrics. 117(21. S181-S189.
Secrist-Mertz, C., Brotherson, M. J., Oakland, M. J., & Litchfield, R. (1997). Helping families meet the nutritional needs o f children with disabilities: An integrated modeL Children's Health Care. 2 6 .151-168.
Sheppard, J. (1995). Clinical evaluation and treatment. In S. Rosenthal, J. Sheppard, & M. Lotze (Eds.), Dysphagia and the Child With Developmental Disabilities (pp. 37-75). San Diego, California: Singular Publishing Group.
Singer, L., Song, L., & Jaffe, A. (1990). Stress and depression in mothers o f failure-to- thrive children. Journal o f Pediatric Psychology. 15. 711-720.
Singer, L., Salvator, A., Guo,S., Collin, M., LiHen, L., & Baley, J. (1999). JAMA. 281. 799-805.
Sloman, L., & Konstantareas, M. M. (1990). Why families o f children with biological deficits require a systems approach. Family Process. 29 .417-429.
Snowdon, A., & Kane, D. (1995). Parental needs following the discharge o f a hospitalized child. Pediatric Nursing. 21 .425-428.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
127
Sparling, J., & Rogers, J. (1985). Feeding assessment: Development o f a faiopsychosocial instrument. Occupational Therapy Journal o f Research. 5 .2-23.
SPSS, Inc. (1999). SPSS Base 9.0. Chicago, IL: Author.
Sullivan, P. B. (1992). Gastrostomy and the disabled child. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology. 34 .552-555.
Taylor, S. E., Buunk, B. P., & Aspinwall, L. G. (1990). Social comparison, stress, and coping. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 16 (1). 74-89.
Thommessen, M., Heiberg, A., & Kase, B. F. (1992). Feeding problems in children with congenital heart disease: the impact on energy intake and growth outcome. European Journal n f Clinical Nutrition. 46. 457-464.
Waldron-Hennessey, R. & Sabatelli, R. (1997). The parental comparison level index: A measure for assessing parental rewards and costs relative to expectations. Journal o f Marriage and the Family. 59. 824-833.
Warfield, M., Krauss, M., Hauser-cram, P., Upshur, C., & Shonkoffi J. (1999).Adaptation during early childhood among mothers o f childrem with disabilities. Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics2Q.9-16.
Welch, K. A. (1996). Parent-infant interaction during plav and feeding for infants who are typically developing and for infants who have a feeding problem and a developmental delay. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Vanderbilt University.
White, K., Mhango-Mkandawire, S., & Rosenthal, S. (1995). Nutrition support. In S. Rosenthal, J. Sheppard, & M. Lotze (Eds.), Dvsphagia and the Child With Developmental Disabilities (pp. 77-98). San Diego, California: Singular Publishing Group.
Whitchurch, G. G., & Constantine, L. L. (1994). Systems theory. In Boss, P. G., Doherty, W .., LaRossa, R., Schumm, W. IL, & Steinmetz, S. K. (Eds.), Sourcebook of family theories and methods: A contextual approach (pp. 325-352). New York: Plenum Press.
Zeitlan, S. & Williamson, G. G . (1994). Coping in vormg children. Baltimore, MD: PaulH. Brookes Publishing Co.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
APPENDIX
128
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
129
Appendix A: Research Involving the Parenting Stress Index and
Parenting Stress Index/Short Form
The Parenting Stress Index (PSI) is a reliable and valid self-report measure commonly
used in research and clinical practice. The PSI measures an individual’s stress related to
their role as a parent. The items o f the PSI were developed from the literature on infant
development, parent-child interaction, child attachment, child abuse and neglect, child
psychopathology, child management, and stress. An expert panel used the literature to
develop a pool of items. Each of the items was then rated for relevance by a panel o f six
parent-child relation professionals. The most relevant items were field tested to derive the
101 items o f the PSI (Abidin, 1995a).
The Parenting Stress Index/Short Form (PSI/SF) was developed based on the full
length PSI. incorporating the full original wording of specific items from the full length
PSI. "The PSI/SF was developed through a series o f replicated factor analyses, w hich__
resulted in a three factor solution as the best description o f the data" (Abidin, 1995a,
p.57). While the PSI/SF is newer and has not been as extensively validated as the PSI, its
shorter length taking 10 rather than 20 minutes to complete may result in increased
attention to test questions by parents (Abidin, 1995a).
Several studies of parenting stress using the Parenting Stress Index (PSI) have
indicated that parents o f toddlers and preschoolers with extremely low birth weight,
developmental delays, and developmental disabilities have significantly higher levels of
parenting stress (Beckman, 1991; Singer, Salvatore, Guo, Collin, UGen, & Baley, 1999).
Beckman (1991) found that parents o f toddlers and preschoolers with disabilities had
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
130
significantly greater stress on the parent domain, child domain, and total stress score o f the
PSI. However, most studies involving parents o f toddlers and preschoolers with
developmental problems reported significantly increased stress on the PSI in the parent
domain but not the child domain, indicating the increased stress was related to the child’s
characteristics (Abidin, 1995a; Innocenti, Huh, & Boyce, 1992; Singer et aL, 1999).
Parents o f children with &3ure-to-thrive problems whose children had greater
developmental delay reported significantly greater stress in the Child Domain but not the
Parent Domain o f the PSI (Singer, Song, Hill, & Jaffe, 1989).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
131
Appendix B: Demographic Questionnaire
Subject # ____Date:______
Introduction First, I’d like to get some background information about you and your
family.
1. Child Demographic Questions
a. Medications/verify/Changes:____________________________________
b. Food allergy No Yes
c. Verify medical status:________________________________________
d. Seizures: No Yes If yes, within past 6 months No Yes
e. Length ofNICU stay None Yes Initial length_______
f. Hospitalizations/emergencies in past 6 months No Yes Number_____
g. Onset o f feeding problems-(constipation, diarrhea, colic, vomiting, food refusal,
taking food off spoon difficulties, swallowing difficulties)
Date:_______________________________________________
Type:_________________________________________________________
h. Current weight reported:______
L Current height reported:________
j. Tube as well as oral fed: No Yes
Bolus or Continuous & Amount:____________________
k. Had a fundoplication: No Yes
L significant neonatal or perinatal deviation/disease: No__ (Skip to ) Yes
Describe: _____ _______ ____
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
132
ra. prematurity: No Yes Bom at what gestational age_______________
a. Low birth weight No Yes
o. Birth weight____________
p. Length ofNICU stay None Yes Initial length________
q. Experience o f difficulty/complications during pregnancy: No (If no skip next)
Yes Specify_____________________________________________________
r. Length o f mother's hospitalization during infant's birth_____________________
s. Subsequent hospitalizations/emergencies No Yes
t. Number emergencies/hospitalizations since NICU
u. Describe feeding problems:
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
133
2. Familv factors Subject #:__ Date:______
a. Household Members Relationship to child Age
Mom
Dad
Child
Child
Child
b. Child care arrangements for target child: Parent Day Care Center/amt.______
Relative/amt:_____
c. Parents Occupations: Occupation Hours
Mother:__________________________________________________________
Father:___________________ ___________ _________ ________
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
134
3. Feeding Questions Subject#:____ Date:______
a. Primary feeder: Mother Father Other______
Primary feeder percentage o f feeding:_____
b. Percentage feeding spouse does:___
c. Percentage feeding others do:___ Describe:______________________
d. Primary feeder history feeding problems No Yes
Describe:____________________________________________________________
e. Parent health problems No Yes
Describe who/what:_____________________________________________________
f. Sibling disabilities or chronic health problems:___ No ___Yes
Who/what:_________________________________________
g. Onset and types o f feeding problems-define as constipation, diarrhea, colic, vomiting,
food refusal, taking food off spoon difficulties, swallowing
difficulties:________________________________
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
135
Annendix Cr Information abont Yoarseif
Subject #_____Date_____
Age:_____
Race: Non-Hispanic W hite Black Hispanic_____Native American Asian/ Pacific Islander_____Other Specify___________
Marital Status: Married_____(Number of years____ ) Divorced______Single Separated Widowed_____
Education: Less than 12th grade High School_____Vocational/ Some college College Graduate______
Graduate Degree_____
Occupation:_________________________
Employment Status: Part Time____ (number ofhours per week)_____Full Time (number ofhours per week)_____
Annual Household Income: Less than $15,000_____ $15,000-25,000_____$26,000-$50,000_____ $51,000-100,000_____$101,000-200,000_____ Over 200,000______
Is this a 1 or 2 income family: I ___ 2_____
How satisfied are you with your balance between career, personal interests and parenting? Very Unsatisfied 1 2 3 4 5 Very Satisfied
Overall, how satisfied are you with the amount o f support you have with parenting?Very Unsatisfied 1 2 3 4 5 Very Satisfied
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
136
Appendix D: Feeding Questionnaire-Parent copy
Section A. In this section I am going to ask you about your overall experiences and
desires in feeding your child.
1. What are your greatest concerns regarding feeding your child (up to 5 things)?
2. When considering the various aspects o f caring for your child that you like from most
to least enjoyable, where does feeding rank?
3. How many hours a day does it take on average, to feed your child?
4. What is your child's average amount of food eaten daily?
Section B. Now I’m going to describe several feeding behaviors that parents sometimes
describe as problematic. For each behavior, let me know whether yonr child has this
problem, and if so how often. Rate the problem 0 If yonr child never has the
difficulty; 1 Has difficulty up to 25% of the time; 2 Up to 50% of the time; 3 Up to
75% of the time 4 More than 75% of the time. For each problem that occurs, I will also
ask you to rate your degree o f frustration using a 0 to 4 scale:
0 Not frustrating 1 2 3 4 Extremely frustrating
Here is a copy o f the rating scale as a reminder.
Do you have a problem with your child:
1. Lacking adequate postural control required for eating well2. Lacking adequate movement skills required for eating well3. Choking/coughing on food4. Eating too slowly5. Taking too long to feed6. Refusing or resisting eating enough food to maintain adequate nutrition7. Refusing or resisting drinking enough liquids to maintain adequate hydration8. Refusing or resisting food unless distracted (by T.V., toys, etc.)9. Refusing or resisting age appropriate textures o f food
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
137
10. Spitting out food11. Eating too quickly12. Eating too much, exceeding his nutritional requirements and risking obesity13. Stuffing the mouth with food14. Fating nonfood items15. Crying or screaming during meals16. Signs o f getting food in lungs (e.g. wheezing)
Section C. In this section, I'm going to describe feeding behaviors which many parents describe as desirable, but sometimes lacking. Let me know if this behavior occurs, and if so how frequently. Rate the positive behavior 0 if it never occurs; 1 Rarely-up to 25% of the time; 2 Sometimes-up to 50% of the time; 3 Often-up to 75% of the time 4 Very often-more than 75% of the time.Do you have the positive experience of your child:1. Accepting touch on the face so the feeder can wipe the mouth2. Accepting touch o f the food and/or spoon during feeding3. Chewing in an age appropriate way4. Opening mouth as the spoon approaches5. Taking food off the spoon with the lips6. Keeping food in the mouth while eating7. Drinking in an age appropriate way8. Sitting long enough to complete the meal
Section D.
1. What do you find most frustrating in feeding your child?
2. What aspects of feeding your child do you find most rewarding?
3a. What if any areas of feeding your child do you need help with?
3b. Please explain.
4a. Is feeding treatment part of your child's early intervention program?
4b. If so, what does it involve and what impact does it have?
5a. What are your goals for your child's future feeding abilities?
5b. Please exp Iain-
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
138
6. Overall, how satisfied are you with the amount o f support you receive with feeding
from family and
friends?
Very Unsatisfied 1 2 3 4 5 Very Satisfied
7. Regarding support with feeding, do you let other people feed your child and if so, how
comfortable do you feel doing this?
8a. How satisfied are you with your balance between feeding your child, other family
responsibilities, personal interest and work responsibilities:
Very Unsatisfied 1 2 3 4 5 Very Satisfied
8b. Please explain.
9a. Overall, how satisfied are you with the experience of feeding your child?
Very Unsatisfied 1 2 3 4 5 Very Satisfied
9b. Please explain.
10. Are there any other issues which affect your feeding frustration/rewards?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
139
Appendix E: Feeding Ouestionnaire-Interviewer Form
Subject#____Form #____John’s client: Yes No____Agency: RA Other:______________Date________Taped: Yes No
Section A. In this section I am going to ask you about your overall experiences and
desires in feeding your child.
I. What are your greatest concerns regarding feeding your child (up to 5 things)?Amt. Food for growth; Amt. food for functioning; describe "eat normally"; family
impact
2. When considering the various aspects o f caring for your child that you like from most to least enjoyable, where does feeding rank?
W hat makes (un)enjoyable); which times during feeding; aspects of feeding
3. How many hours a day does it take on average, to feed your child?Avg. daily total4. What is your child's average amount o f food eaten daily?Average daily: Liquid by mouth, specific size solid by mouth, liquid by tube, confirm
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
140
Section B. Now I'm going to describe several feeding behaviors that parents sometimes
describe as problematic. For each behavior, let me know whether your child has this
problem, and if so how often. Rate the problem 0 If yonr child never has the
difficulty; 1 Has difficulty up to 25% of the time; 2 Up to 50% of the time; 3 Up to
75% of the time 4 More than 75% of the time.
For each problem that occurs, I will also ask you to rate your degree o f frustration using a
0 to 4 scale:
0 Not frustrating 1 2 3 4 Extremely frustrating
Here is a copy of the rating scale as a reminder.
If never occurs, frustration 0 automatically; rate frustration level while occuring
Do you have a problem with your child:
1. Lacking adequate postural control required for eating well 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
2. Lacking adequate movement skills required for eating well Head/mouth 0 12 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
3. Choking/coughing on food 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
4. Eating too slowly 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
5. Taking too long to feed eat & drink included 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
6. Refusing or resisting eating enough food to maintain adequate nutritionO 1 23 4 0 1 2 3 4
7. Refusing or resisting drinking enough Equids to maintain adequate hydrationO 12 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
8. Refusing or resisting food unless distracted (by T.V., toys, etc.) 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
9. Refusing or resisting age appropriate textures o f food 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
141
10. Spitting out food Actively 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
11. Eating too quickly 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
12. Eating too much, exceeding his nutritional requirements and risking obesity 0 12 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
13. Stuffing the mouth with food 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
14. Eating nonfood items 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
15. Crying or screaming during meals 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
16. Signs o f getting food in hmgs (e.g. wheezing) 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
Section C. In this section, I'm going to describe feeding behaviors which many parents describe as desirable, but sometimes lacking. Let me know if this behavior occurs, and if so how frequently. Rate the positive behavior 0 if it never occurs; 1 Rarely-up to 25% of the time; 2 Sometimes-up to 50% of the time; 3 Often-up to 75% of the time 4 Very often-more than 75% of the time.Do yon have the positive experience of your child:1. Accepting touch on the face so the feeder can wipe the mouth 0 12 3 4
2. Accepting touch o f the food and/or spoon during feeding 0 12 3 4
3. Chewing in an age appropriate way 0 12 3 4
4. Opening mouth as the spoon approaches 0 12 3 4
5. Taking food off the spoon with the lips 0 1 2 3 4
6. Keeping food in the mouth while eating 0 12 3 4
7. Drinking in an age appropriate way 0 12 3 4
8. Sitting long enough to complete the meal willingness 0 123 4
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
142
Section D.
L What do you find most frustrating in feeding your child?Specific things child does and doesn't do th at most frustrate feeder
2. What aspects of feeding your child do you find most rewarding?New categories; specific things child does that reward feeder, describe ''improvement”
3a. What if any areas o f feeding your child do you need help with?Help addressing what specific aspects, how choice impacts feeding frustration /rewards
3b. Please explain.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
143
4a. Is feeding treatment part o f your child's early intervention program? No Yes.
4b. If so, what does it involve and what impact does it have?Specific areas addressed, how it has(n't) helped with frustration/rewards
5a. What are your goals for your child's future feeding abilities?
5b. Please explain.Why are these your goals, how accomplishing will affect feeder frustration/rewards
6. Overall, how satisfied are you with the amount o f support you have with feeding?
Very Unsatisfied 1 2 3 4 5 Very Satisfied
Why? How does being (un)supported affect frustration/rewards
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
144
7. Regarding support with feeding, do you let other people feed your child and if so, bow
comfortable do you feel doing this?
8a. How satisfied are you with your balance between feeding your child, other family
responsibilities, personal interest and work responsibilities:
Very Unsatisfied 1 2 3 4 5 Very Satisfied
8b. Please explain.Why (un)satisfied
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
145
9a. Overall, how satisfied are you with the experience o f feeding your child?
Very Unsatisfied 1 2 3 4 5 Very Satisfied
9b. Please explain.Why (on)satisfJed?
10. Are there any other issues which affect your feeding frustration/rewards?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
146
Appendix F: Family Demographics and Medical History Form
Subject #:____Date:_____Date o f Parent Interview_____
L Child Factors
a. Date o f Birth_________
b. Craniofacial problems: No Yes
Cleft Lip unrepaired Repaired______
Cleft Palate unrepaired Repaired______
c. Sex: M F___
d. Diagnoses:__________________________________________________
e. Disabilities (check if problem present): Legally Blind_____
Hearing Impaired______ Seizure disorder_____ Sz m past 6 months
Neurologically impaired Shunt______
ft Date began Birth-to-Three services (evaluation deemed eligible):_____
g. Tube as well as oral fed: No Yes
Bolus or Continuous & Amount:_____________________
Nasogastric Gastrostomy
h. Had a fimdoplication: No Yes
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
147
L Food allergy: No Yes
Specify:_____________________________________________
j. Needs supplemental oxygen: No Yes
Describe:____________________________________
k. Takes some food or liquid orally and is medically able to do both to some degree:
No Yes
If no, omit from study
L Any medical limits to oral eating: No Yes
Describe______________________________________________________
m. Taking medications: No Yes
Specify:
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
148
a. SD regarding Physical Development: GM________ FM________ Source:
Date:_____
Cognitive Development:__________Source:_______ Date
Personal Social:______ Source:_____ Date
SelfiHelp/Adaptive:_______ Source:______ Date:__________
Communication (total):_______ Receptive_______ Expressive_______
Source:_________ Date:
II. Infant history factors
(1) Significant neonatal or perinatal deviation/disease: No (Skip to 6) Yes
Describe:________________________________________________
(2) Prematurity: No Yes Bom at what gestational age_______________
(3) Low birth weight No Yes
(4) Birth weight_____________
(5) Length ofNICU stay None Yes Initial length________
6. Current B-3 treatment:
6b. Date o f initial IFSP_______ 6c. Date o f most current IFSP________7. Other non-physician tx/fieq:_____________________________________________
7. List any goals and objectives in the child's current Birth-to-Three treatment plan that
address feeding:
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
149
Appendix G: Parent Perspectives on FeedingInformed Consent
Dear Parents,
I am an Occupational Therapist who has worked closely with the Birth-to-Three system for many years, providing services to children with feeding problems and them families. At the present tone I am completing my PhD . at the University o f Connecticut As part o f my dissertation project I am requesting your participation in a research study that focuses on understanding parent's perspectives on feeding issues with infants and toddlers. My research project is titled Parent Perspectives on Feeding. I would appreciate the opportunity to visit with you at your home or the Birth-to-Three office to discuss feeding issues and have you fill out short questionnaires. All interviews will be confidential.
The questions will take approximately an hour. If you prefer, two visits can be arranged to complete the questions. I will ask you some basic questions about your family, then focus on your experience of feeding. The feeding questions will ask you to describe what feeding is like for you, and ask you to rate certain specific aspects o f feeding. Following these questions. I will ask you to fill out a short questionnaire about your overall stress related to parenting. Before visiting you to ask for your views. I will gather information from your child’s Birth-to-Three records regarding his or her developmental and medical status and Birth-to-Three treatment goals. The file will not be taken out of the office. All information from your child's Birth-to-Three records and the interview will be identified by a number and kept confidential
I realize that answering questions during a home visit wfll take some time and effort on your part, and I thank you in advance for considering participation. I hope that this study will provide information that will enable direct service providers to better assist families in the area offeeding, although it is not likely to be a direct benefit to you or your child. To thank you for your participation in the study, I will bring a small gift for your child. I will also provide you a summary o f the research results after the study is completed, if you would like a copy. Your Birth-to-Three provider agency has agreed to ask for your participation in this study, but this study being conducted by me under the direction o f my advisors at UCONN.
Throughout the study, I will make every effort to assure that you are comfortable with participation; however, if at any tune you wish to withdraw from the study, you are free to do so. I will be glad to share the results of the study or answer your questions at any time. I would greatly appreciate your participation. If you would fike to be part o f this study, please indicate your consent below and provide your signature. Any questions regarding this project should be directed to John Pagano at (203) 294-0465. Thank you very much for your consideration.
Sincerely,
John Pagano, MS, OTR/L
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
150
Parent Perspectives on Feeding
Informed Consent
I ,______________, hereby consent to my participation in the following research project:Parent Perspectives on Feeding Then: Child. John Pagano, MS, OTR/L, Researcher. School ofFamily Studies, University o f Connecticut.I give permission for developmental and medical information to be gathered from my child's Birth-to-Three record, and wiU participate in completing demographic and feeding questionnaires and a questionnaire regarding parenting stress. I understand that I am free to withdraw consent and to discontinue participation in the project at any time without prejudice.
Parent/Guardian Date
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
151
Appendix Ht Parent Perspectives on FeedingInformed Consent and Release of Medical Information
Dear Parents,
I am an Occupational Therapist who has worked closely with the Birth-to-Three system for many years, providing services to children with feeding problems and their families. At the present time I am completing my PhJD. at the University o f Connecticut As part o f my dissertation project, I am requesting your participation in a research study that focuses on understanding parent's perspectives on feeding issues with infants and toddlers. My research project is titled Parent Perspectives on Feeding. I would appreciate the opportunity to visit with you at your home or the Birth-to-Three office to discuss feeding issues and have you fill out short questionnaires. All interviews will be confidential.
The questions will take approximately an hour. If you prefer, two visits can be arranged to complete the questions. I will ask you some basic questions about your family, then focus on your experience o f feeding. The feeding questions will ask you to describe what feeding is like for you, and ask you to rate certain specific aspects o f feeding. Following these questions, I will ask you to fill out a short questionnaire about your overall stress related to parenting. In addition to visiting you to ask for your views. I will gather information from your child's Birth-to-Three records regarding his or her developmental and medical status and Birth-to-Three treatment goals. The file will not be taken out of the office. All information from your child’s Birth-to-Three records and the interview will be identified by a number and kept confidential
I realize that answering questions during a home visit will take some time and effort on your part, and I thank you in advance for considering participation. I hope that this study will provide information that will enable direct service providers to better assist families in the area offeeding, although it is not likely to be a direct benefit to you or your child. To thank you for your participation in the study, I will bring a small gift for your child. I will also provide you a summary of the research results after the study is completed, if you would like a copy. Your Birth-to-Three provider agency has agreed to ask for your participation in this study, but this study being conducted by me under the direction of my advisors at UCONN.
Throughout the study, I will make every effort to assure that you are comfortable with participation; however, if at any time you wish to withdraw from the study, you are free to do so. I will be glad to share the results o f the study or answer your questions at any time. I would greatly appreciate your participation. If you would like to be part o f this study, please indicate your consent below and provide your signature. Any questions regarding this project should be directed to John Pagano at (203) 294-0465. Thank you very much for your consideration.
Sincerely,
John Pagano, MS, OTR/L
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
152
Parent Perspectives on Feeding
Informed Consent
I ,_____________ , hereby consent to ray participation, in the following research project:Parent Perspectives on Feeding Their Child. John Pagano, MS, OTR/L, Researcher. School o f Family Studies, University o f Connecticut.I give permission for developmental and medical information to be gathered from my child's Birth-to-Three record, and will participate in completing demographic and feeding questionnaires and a questionnaire regarding parenting stress. 1 understand that I am free to withdraw consent and to discontinue participation in the project at any time without prejudice.I also request that my child's birth-to-three provider agency release information regarding my child's developmental and medical status and Birth-to-Three treatment goals to John Pagano. I understand that he will keep this information confidential, and will receive a copy o f information from my child's file and/or review my child's birth-to-three file, but will not remove the birth-to-three file from the office.
Parent/Guardian Date
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
153
Appendix I: Reliability Information
II. Categorizations of Diagnoses
The researcher developed hierarchical categorizations for the diagnoses o f the target
children based on the literature and his clinical experience as a pediatric occupational
therapist. The categorizations were checked for reliability by Michelle Broggi, RPT,
Physical Therapist and doctoral student m the Family Studies program at the University of
Connecticut. The researcher and Ms. Broggi agreed on the diagnostic categories for 28 of
the 31 subjects. Consensus was reached for the three diagnoses which had been
categorized differently by 1) stressing that the categorizations were hierarchical and
diagnoses would be placed in the first sequential diagnostic category that applied 2)
adding to the developmental disabilities category “and language disorders”, clearly
identifying language disorder as a developmental disability, and 3) assigning hypotonicity
to the prematurity categorization and removing it from the categorization of Cerebral
Palsy (based on the literature indicating that low muscle tone is most frequently associated
with prematurity, while high muscle tone is more indicative o f Cerebral Palsy).
12. Categorizations of Parents* Responses to the Open-Ended Questions
Responses to all o f the open-ended questions were categorized by the researcher. The
categories were then used by Sally O’Brien, certified special education teacher, to blindly
assign the initial responses to categories. Comparison was made between the
categorizations, and differences in categorization were resolved by consensus between the
researcher and Ms. O’Brien. Consensus was reached through discussion, modifying or
adding categories as indicated.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
154
13. What are your greatest concerns regarding feeding yonr child?
Salty O’Brien and the researcher’s categorizations agreed for 37 of the 57 items. The
20 disagreements m categorizing the items were resolved through consensus to use 3 of
the categorizations initially proposed by the researcher, 6 initially proposed by Ms.
O’Brien, 2 by revising the initial categorizations, and 9 by using new categorizations.
Modifications made were revising the category limited diet parent can offer to limited diet
variety, adding ambiguous to the category ambiguous/other, and adding liquid orally to
the category child getting adequate nutrition/vitamins/calories/liquid orally. New
categories were vomiting or reflux, persistence o f eating problems, and feeding tube
concerns.
[4. W hat do you find most frustrating in feeding your child?
Sally O’Brien and the researcher’s categorizations agreed for 40 o f the 55 items. The
15 disagreements in categorizing the items were resolved through consensus to use 3 of
the categorizations initially proposed by the researcher, 3 initially proposed by Ms.
O’Brien, 3 by revising the initial categorizations, and 6 by using new categorizations.
Modification was made adding ambiguous to the category ambiguous/other. New
categories were limited types o f foods can give child and child not taking enough food.
15. W hat if any areas of feeding your child do you need help with?
Sally O’Brien and the researchers categorizations agreed for 32 o f the 50 items. The
18 disagreements in categorizing the items were resolved through consensus to use 7 of
the categorizations initially proposed by the researcher, 1 initially proposed by Ms.
O’Brien, 6 by revising the initial categorizations, and 4 by using new categorizations.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
155
Modification was made adding ambiguous to the category ambiguous/otherT and revising
the category enjoying or accepting foods to child accepting a variety o f foods and/or new
foods. New categories added were many or all aspects o f feeding and integrating
strategies to improve feeding skills into the family routines.
16. What if any areas of feeding your child do yon need help with?
The alternate categorization o f areas of feeding parents needed help with was
suggested by Dr. Ronald Sabatelli, Associate Dissertation Advisor. Dr. Sabatelli did the
original categorizations. Reliability was confirmed by the primary researcher. However,
this is the only open-ended question reliability process in which the second person was
already aware of the initial coding of responses.
17. What aspects of feeding do you find most rewarding?
Sally O'Brien and the researcher’s categorizations agreed for 42 o f the 55 items. The
13 disagreements in categorizing the items were resolved through consensus to use 3 of
the categorizations initially proposed by the researcher, 1 initially proposed by Ms.
O’Brien. 8 by revising the initial categorizations, and 4 by using new categorizations.
Modification was made adding ambiguous to the category ambiguous/other. The new
category added was child’s weight gain.
18. What impact did Birth-to-Three feeding treatment have?
Sally O’Brien and the researchers categorizations agreed for 19 o f the 26 items. The
7 disagreements in categorizing the items were resolved through consensus to use 1 o f the
categorizations initially proposed by the researcher, 3 initially proposed by Ms. O’Brien,
and placing 3 responses in the new categorization ambiguous.
19. Categorizing the match of parents’ goals with the goals in their child’s chart
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
156
Consideration was given to the match between the parents’ feeding goals and the
combined feeding goals in their child’s chart. For the first parent goal 18 families
described feeding goals and had goals from the child’s chart available. Sally O’Brien and
the researcher’s categorizations agreed for 11 o f the 18 responses. The 7 disagreements
in categorizing were resolved through consensus to use 4 o f the categorizations initially
proposed by the researcher, 2 initially proposed by Ms. O’Brien, and I using the new
categorization ofPartially addressed.
For the second parent goal, there were 9 responses with corresponding chart data
available. Both evaluators agreed on 5 o f the 9 categorizations. The 4 disagreements in
categorizing were resolved through consensus to use 1 o f the categorizations initially
proposed by the researcher. I initially proposed by Ms. O’Brien, and 2 using the new
categorization ofPartially addressed.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Appendix J: Snppfemental Tables
Table 1
Number and Percent o f Parents Who Mentioned Each Feeding Problem
Feeding Problem N Never0
Up to 25% of tim e
1
Up to 50% of time
2
Up to 75% of time
3
More than 75% of
time 4
More than 50% of tim e 3 o r 4
1. Lacking postural control for eating
30 20(66.7%)
2(6.7%)
2(6.7%)
0 6(20%)
6(20%)
2. Lacking adequate movement for eating
31 15(48.4%)
8(25.8%)
2(6.5%)
3(9.7%)
3(9.7%)
6(19.4%)
3.Chokes on food 31 9(29.0%)
16(51.6%)
2(6.5%)
1(3.2%)
3(9.7%)
4(12.9%)
4. Eats too slow 31 12(38.7%)
7(22.6%)
4(12.9%)
1(3.2%)
7(22.6%)
8(25.8%)
5.Takes too long to feed
29 12(41.4%)
6(20.7%)
4(13.8%)
2(6.9%)
5(17.2%)
7(24.1%)
6. Refuses eating enough
31 7(22.6%)
6(19.1%)
3(9.7%)
3(9.7%)
12(38.7%)
15(48.4%)
7. Refuses drinking enough
31 19(61.3%)
3(9.7%)
1(3.2%)
3(9.7%)
5(16.1%)
8(25.8%)
8. Refuses food unless distracted
30 13(43.3%)
4(13.3%)
4(13.3%)
0 9(30%)
9(30%)
SLRefuses age appropriate food textures
30 9(30%)
1(3.3%)
4(13.3%)
5(16.7%)
11(36.6%)
16(53.3%)
10. Spits out food 30 8(26.7%)
10(33.3%)
3(10.0%)
3(10.0%)
6(20.0%)
9(30%)
11.Eats too quickly 31 26(83.9%)
2(6.5%)
0 3(9.7%)
0 3(9.7%)
12. Eats too much 31 31(100%)
0 0 0 0 0
13. Stuffs mouth 31 18(58.1%)
6(19.4%)
0 3(9.7%)
4(12.9%)
7(22.6%)
14.Pica 31 27(87.1%)
3(9.7%)
0 0 1(3.2%)
1(3.2%)
15.Crying during meals
31 12(38.7%)
10(32.3%)
2(6.5%)
4(12.9%)
3(9.7%)
7(22.6%)
16.Wheezing 31 26(83.9%)
3(9.7%)
1(3.2%)
1(3.2%)
0 1(3.2%)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
158
Table 2
Parent Ratings o f Frustration Regarding Feeding Problems: Frequency and Percent
Not Frustrating ExtremelyFrustrating
Feeding Problem N 0 1 2 3 4 3 o r 41.Lacking postural 10 0 3 1 3 3 6control for eating (30%) (10%) (30%) (30%) (60%)2. Lacking adequate 16 1 3 3 4 5 9movement for eating (6.3%) (18.8%) (18.8%) (25%) (31.3%) (56.3%)3.Chokes on food 22 4 3 2 5 8 13
(18.2%) (13.6%) (9.1%) (22.7%) (36.3%) (59%)4.Eats too slow 19 3 5 4 5 2 7
(15.8%) (26.3%) (21.1%) (26.4%) (10.5%) (36.9%)5.Takes too long to 16 0 2 6 6 2 8feed (12.6%) (37.5%) (37.5%) (12.5%) (50%)6.Refuses eating 21 2 0 2 5 12 17enough (9.5%) (9.5%) (23.8%) (57.1%) (80.9%)7.Refuses drinking 11 2 1 0 0 8 8enough (18.2%) (9.1%) (72.7%) (72.7%)8. Refuses food unless 17 6 4 2 2 3 5distracted (35.3%) (23.5%) (11.8%) (11.8%) (17.6%) (29.4%)9.Refuses age 21 2 1 6 7 5 12appropriate food (9.5%) (4.8) (28.6%) (33.3%) (23.8%) (57.1%)textureslO.Spits out food 21 3 3 3 3 9 12
(14.3%) (14.3%) (14.3%) (14.3%) (42.9%) (57.2%)11. Eats too quickly 5 2 1 1 0 1 1
(40%) (20%) (20%) 20 (20%)12.Eats too much 0 - - - - - -
13. Stuffs mouth 13 4 3 3 2 1 3(30.8%) (23.1%) (23.1%) (15.4%) (7.7%) (23.1%)
14.Pica 4 1 1 1 0 1 1(25%) (25%) (25%) (25%) (25%)
15.Crying during meals 19 1 1 2 2 13 15(5.3%) (5.3%) (10.6%) (10.6%) (68.4%) (79%)
16.Wheezing 5 1 1 1 0 2 2(20%) (20%) (20%) (40%) (40%)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
159
Table 3
Problem Intensity 1: Frequency and Percent
Feeding Problem N 0 1-4 5-8 9-12 13-16 9-16 M SD1. Lacking postural control for eating
30 2066.7
4(13.3%)
2(6.7%)
3(10%)
1(3.3%)
4(13.3%)
2.63 4.72
2.Lacking adequate movement for eating
31 16(51.6%)
8(25.1%)
3(9.7%)
3(9.7%)
1(3.2%)
4(12.9%)
2.84 4.17
3.Chokes on food 31 13(41.9%)
12(38.7%)
3(9.7%)
1(3.2%)
2(6.5%)
3(9.7%)
3.13 4.40
4.Eats too slow 30 15(50%)
9(30.1%)
2(6.7%)
2(6.7%)
2(6.7%)
4(13.4%)
3.13 4.85
5.Takestoo long to feed
28 12(42.9%)
7(24.9%)
3(10.7%)
4(14.3%)
2(7.1%)
6(21.4%)
3.96 5.23
B.Refuses eating enough
27 8(29.6%)
5(18.5%)
2(7.4%)
3(11.1%)
9(33.3%)
12(44.4%)
720 6.92
7.Refuses drinking enough
30 21(70%)
2(6.6)
0 3(10%)
4(13.3%)
7(23.3%)
3.53 6.16
8. Refuses food unless distracted
30 19(63.3%)
6(20%)
1(3.3%)
1(3.3%)
3(10%)
4(13.3%)
2.70 5.23
9. Refuses age appropriate food textures
30 11(36.7%)
5(16.6%)
3(10%)
6(20%)
5(16.7%)
11(36.7%)
6.13 6.06
lO.Spits out food 29 11(37.9%)
8(27.4%)
26.8
3(10.3%)
5(17.2%)
8(27.5%)
4.98 6.20
11.Eats too quickly 31 28(90.3%)
1(3.2%)
1(3.2%)
1(3.2%)
0 1(3.2%)
.61 2.38
12.Eats too much 31 - - - - - - -
13.Stuffs mouth 30 22(73.3%)
3(9.9%)
2(6.7%)
2(6.7%)
1(3.3%)
3(10%)
1.97 4.23
14.Pica 31 28(90.3%)
2(6.4%)
1(3.2%)
0 0 0 .42 1.59
15.Crying during meals
31 13(41.9%)
10(32.3%)
2(6.4%)
4(12.9%)
2(6.5%)
6(19.4%)
4.06 5.13
16.Wheezing 31 27(87.1%) (9.6%)
0 1(32%)
0 1(32%)
.61 226
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
160
Table 4
Problem Intensity 2: Frequency and Percentages
Feeding Problem N 0 1-4 5-8 9-12 13-16 9-16 M SD1. Lacking postural control for eating
10 0 4(40.0%)
2(20.0%)
3(30.0%)
1(10.0%)
4(40%)
7.90 5.04
2. Lacking adequate movement for eating
16 1(6.3%)
8(50.0%)
3(18.8%)
3(18.8%)
1(6.3%)
4(25.1%)
5.50 4.38
3.Chokes on food 22 4(18.2%)
12(34.5%)
3(13.6%)
1(4.5%)
2(9.1%)
3(13.6%)
4.45 4.66
4. Eats too slow 19 4(21.1%)
9(47.3%)
2(10.6%)
2(10.6%)
2(10.6%)
4(21.2%)
4.95 5.33
5.Takes too long to feed
16 0 7(43.8%)
3(18.8%)
4(25.1%)
2(12.5%)
6(37.6%)
6.94 5.22
6.Refuses eating enough
21 2(9.5%)
5(23.8%)
2(9.6%)
3(14.3)
9(42.9%)
12(57.2%)
9.62 6.36
7.Refuses drinking enough
11 2(18.2%)
2(18.2%)
0 3(27.3%)
4(36.4%)
7(63.7%)
9.64 6.74
8. Refuses food unless distracted
17 6(35.3%)
6(35.3%)
1(5.9%)
1(5.9%)
3(17.6%)
4(23.5%)
4.76 6.25
9.Refuses age appropriate food textures
21 2(9.5%)
5(23.8%)
3(14.3%)
6(28.6%)
5(23.8)
11(52.4%)
8.76 5.38
10. Spits out food 18 0 8(44.5%)
211.2
3(16.7%)
5(27.8%)
8(44.5%)
8.06 6.10
11.Eats too quickly 5 2(40.0%)
1(20%)
1(20%)
1(20%)
0 1(20%)
3.80 5.22
12. Eats too much 0 - - - - - - - -
13. Stuffs mouth 13 4(30.8%)
4(30.8%)
2(15.4%)
2(15.4%)
1(7.7%)
3(23.1%)
4.62 5.49
14.Pica 4 1(25.0%)
2(50.0%)
1(25.0%)
0 0 0 3.25 3.59
15. Crying during meais 19 1(5.3%)
10(52.7%)
2(10.6%)
4(21.1%)
2(10.5%)
6(31.6%)
6.63 5.09
16.Wheezing 5 1(20.0%)
3(60.0%)
0 1(20.0%)
0 1(20.0%)
3.80 4.82
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
161
Table 5
Frequency Ratings for Positive Feeding Behaviors
NeverOccurs
lip to 25% of
time
Up to 50% of
time
Up to 75% of
time
More than
75% of time
M ore than
50% o f tim e
Positive Feeding Behaviors
0 1 2 3 4 3&4
1 .Accepting touch 5 4 6 2 13 15on the face for wiping
(16.7%) (13.3%) (20%) (6.7%) (43.3%) (50%)
2. Accepting touch 2 3 4 4 18 22of the spoon (6.5%) (9.7%) (12.9%) (12.9%) (58.1%) (71%)3.Chewing in an 15 1 6 0 8 8ag e approphate way
(50%) (3.3%) (20%) (26.7%) (26.7%)
4.0pening mouth 3 3 6 3 15 18for spoon (9.7%) (9.7%) (19.1%) (9.7%) (50%) (59.7%)5.Taking food off 7 3 2 5 12 17spoon with lips (24.1%) (10.3%) (6.9%) (17.2%) (41.4%) (58.6%)6.Keeping food in 1 0 5 7 18 25mouth while eating (3.2%) (16.1%) (22.6%) (58.1%) (80.7%)7.Drinking in an 11 1 4 1 14 15ag e appropriate way
(35.5%) (3.2%) (12.9%) (3.2%) (45.2%) (48.4%)
8.S itting long 3 4 3 2 19 21enough to com plete meal
(9.7%) (12.9%) (9.7%) (6.5%) (61.3%) (67.8%)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.